Occupy Wall Street protest

[russtafa]

Ya' like that one? Ever see that crazy movie?
no but it looks full on

[Dino Velvet]

no but it looks full on

In a way, especially after "getting your head right", Riki-Oh is better than Enter The Dragon.

[Bobby Domino]

Want to know what happened to pension funds?? The 1% ate yo shit!!!
(this is one of a plethora of reasons everyone's pissed. Serious shit)


Companies Tap Pension Plans To Fund Executive Benefits

- a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, describes how corporate executives enlisted benefits consultants, accountants, actuaries and lawyers, to exploit every loophole and accounting trick to "monetize" their companies' pension funds and turn them into their own cookie jar.
http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20111017%2FNEWS04%2F110170313

[robertlouis]

Want to know what happened to pension funds?? The 1% ate yo shit!!!
(this is one of a plethora of reasons everyone's pissed. Serious shit)


Companies Tap Pension Plans To Fund Executive Benefits

- a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, describes how corporate executives enlisted benefits consultants, accountants, actuaries and lawyers, to exploit every loophole and accounting trick to "monetize" their companies' pension funds and turn them into their own cookie jar.
http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20111017%2FNEWS04%2F110170313

Spot on, Bobby. These people are crooks. Crooks go to jail, err, unless they're bankers or corporate executives....

I liked the slogan I spotted yesterday "We'll believe that corporations are people when Texas executes one."

[maxpower]

Matt Taibbi has some interesting thoughts in the new issue of Rolling Stone on how OWS can bring a little more focus to their agenda with a few concrete demands. Taibbi has always been outspoken in calling Wall Street on their bullshit, and this piece seems pretty on-the-nose.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/my-advice-to-the-occupy-wall-street-protesters-20111012

[Bobby Domino]

Spot on, Bobby. These people are crooks. Crooks go to jail, err, unless they're bankers or corporate executives....

I liked the slogan I spotted yesterday "We'll believe that corporations are people when Texas executes one."

RL, that's a great quote. An Elliot Ness type of character would be a welcome addition to this dynamic.
In hindsight, there were so many books written and whistle-blowers during the Iraq war about WMDs which didn't affect the past administration one bit - I'll give them credit with regard to capacious gonads.
What strategy would have any impact on injustice these days? I guess that the $700 billion question......

[Faldur]

Small businesses, yes corporations, employee 1/2 of all working non farm private sector americans. They are owned by people, most who fit into the upper middle class wage group. I own a corporation, we are in our 20th year of business.

Crush the small business, yes corporations, and you will put 120.6 million hard working people out of work.

And fortunately Texas doesn't execute Corporate Officers, they give them tax breaks.. :)

[braveheart0219]

RL, that's a great quote. An Elliot Ness type of character would be a welcome addition to this dynamic.
In hindsight, there were so many books written and whistle-blowers during the Iraq war about WMDs which didn't affect the past administration one bit - I'll give them credit with regard to capacious gonads.
What strategy would have any impact on injustice these days? I guess that the $700 billion question......


When Gabby Giffords is almost blown away at a supermarket and nothing is done about gun control, I think we have our answer. The whole nation has ADD.

[Faldur]

The whole nation has ADD.

Oh look, a butterfly!

[ILuvGurls]

Howard Stern's take on some occupiers.....too funny

Howard Stern Exposes Occupy Wall St. Morons. - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsJPKMvWDmY&feature=related)

Howard Stern Exposes Occupy Wall St Morons PT2 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLRLTeBi2iA&feature=related)

[BellaBellucci]

Howard Stern's take on some occupiers.....too funny

Howard Stern Exposes Occupy Wall St. Morons. - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsJPKMvWDmY&feature=related)

Howard Stern Exposes Occupy Wall St Morons PT2 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLRLTeBi2iA&feature=related)

Wait. How can anyone respect his opinion on big business? He's one of the biggest sellouts of the last 25 years. Sure, he sold out to get more freedom, not less, but regardless, the guy is a 1%'er. :lol:

~BB~

[onmyknees]

Wait. How can anyone respect his opinion on big business? He's one of the biggest sellouts of the last 25 years. Sure, he sold out to get more freedom, not less, but regardless, the guy is a 1%'er. :lol:

~BB~


Sellout? I love ya Bella but you sound like a 60's leftover from Haight -Ashbury.
I haven't listened to Stern in years, and even when I did it was in small doses, but as I recall, he fulfilled his contract, used his fame and popularity and leveraged it to make as much money as he possibly could, much as any actor, athlete, T Gurl escort/actress, or politician would do. As Don King would say...only in America. Your sell out is another person's entrepreneur.

[BellaBellucci]

Sellout? I love ya Bella but you sound like a 60's leftover from Haight -Ashbury.
I haven't listened to Stern in years, and even when I did it was in small doses, but as I recall, he fulfilled his contract, used his fame and popularity and leveraged it to make as much money as he possibly could, much as any actor, athlete, T Gurl escort/actress, or politician would do. As Don King would say...only in America. Your sell out is another person's entrepreneur.

The point is that he works for 'the man,' so it would make sense that he would mock these protesters. It wasn't really a value judgment, per se.

~BB~

[onmyknees]

The point is that he works for 'the man,' so it would make sense that he would mock these protesters. It wasn't really a value judgment, per se.

~BB~


LOL...."the man".....?? Haven't heard that since Pam Grier starred in those Shaft movies...

Some of the protestors are imminently mock able, that's why he mocked them. But as I say....I still love ya.

[trish]

Speaking about despicable shock jocks, did ya hear the one about Rush Limbaugh endorsing the Lord's Resistance Army of murderer's, rapists and child molesters?

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/limbaugh-defends-lords-resistance-army/

[robertlouis]

Speaking about despicable shock jocks, did ya hear the one about Rush Limbaugh endorsing the Lord's Resistance Army of murderer's, rapists and child molesters?

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/limbaugh-defends-lords-resistance-army/

Once an asshole..... :whistle:

[trish]

He gives assholes a bad name.

[robertlouis]

He gives assholes a bad name.


....which is, when you think about it, no mean achievement. :whistle:

[onmyknees]

Speaking about despicable shock jocks, did ya hear the one about Rush Limbaugh endorsing the Lord's Resistance Army of murderer's, rapists and child molesters?

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/limbaugh-defends-lords-resistance-army/


Nah...hadn't heard that one Trish, but thanks for trolling it out for us on your one sided media watch dog routine. I must have been occupied that day watching Chuck Todd admonish Andrea Mitchell for attempting to drop the R card on Rick Perry for calling Cain "brother". Now that was funny. I'll send you the link...you seem in need of a good laugh these days.

[BluegrassCat]

Nah...hadn't heard that one Trish, but thanks for trolling it out for us on your one sided media watch dog routine. I must have been occupied that day watching Chuck Todd admonish Andrea Mitchell for attempting to drop the R card on Rick Perry for calling Cain "brother". Now that was funny. I'll send you the link...you seem in need of a good laugh these days.

That's a retort? I'll see your "Limbaugh defending rape/kidnapping/murder" and raise you "media notes that Perry has serious racist baggage". OMK loses his shirt again when stepping into politics, lol.

[trish]

...you seem in need of a good laugh these days. Oh, did I forget to type LMAO? I wonder why?

[Silcc69]

Shit this thread needs more Faldur and less OMK.

[onmyknees]

Oh, did I forget to type LMAO?


No...but what was the point....that people say outrageous shit on the radio? Shocking revelation Trish...thanks for that. Try listening to Mike Malloy when he advocates that Seal Team 6 visit the Bush's....then get back to me about outrageous shock jocks....OK?...But then again maybe it was I who failed to see the humor.

[onmyknees]

Shit this thread needs more Faldur and less OMK.


Who the fuck asked you? When I need some commentary from punks like you.....I have multiple options now. So tell us....between the play station3 and the online free porn, and multiple tranny forums and chat rooms you frequented today, tell us what else you squeezed into your day. What a pathetic bastard you are.

[ed_jaxon]

LOL...."the man".....?? Haven't heard that since Pam Grier starred in those Shaft movies...

C'mon man!

Pam Grier wasn't in no Shaft movie!

She wasn't in Shaft, Shaft's Big Score nor Shaft in Africa.

And no she wasn't in the TV series either.

Love me some Pam Grier.

[Silcc69]

Who the fuck asked you? When I need some commentary from punks like you.....I have multiple options now. So tell us....between the play station3 and the online free porn, and multiple tranny forums and chat rooms you frequented today, tell us what else you squeezed into your day. What a pathetic bastard you are.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_OEWNrlUA7Gc/TBplnjw612I/AAAAAAAABzQ/wGGIp4FCJ28/s320/stalk.jpg

[trish]

Some...
people say outrageous shit on the radio...A lot of people don't. But in a mad rush to fling feces at the president Mad Rush picked up the story of Obama's campaign against the Lord's Resistance Army of Murderers, Cutthroats, Rapists, Kidnappers and Child Molesters and ran with it before doing absolutely any research. No wait, he asked Dawn,Brian and Snerdly whether they ever heard of the Lord's Resistance Army and amazingly these radio newsroom hacks were as completely in the dark as Mad Rush himself! This story is no big surprise. It's completely characteristic of the right's current modus operandi: blindly obstruct every move Obama makes, ask questions later. I did in fact laugh my ass off at the sheer stupidity of Mad Rush's ignorance, his lack of journalistic integrity and at the idiotic way he showed his hand (once again). But it also pained me to be reminded that there are people with voluminous megaphones that are so ignorant, so biased and so irresponsible.

[trish]

More Pam Grier, less OMK.

[Stavros]

I have known about the Lord's Resistance Army since the 1980s when its leader was a nutcase called Alice Lakwena, because I knew someone at the time who was writing about them -but there is probably more awareness here of African issues via the commonwealth/empire, and Imperial History continues to be a popular option with students, although I thought African Americans had an interest in Africa too.

As Trish suggests, Rush Limbaugh jumped on the LRA merely to attack Obama -and in doing so has demonstrated a quite lamentable ignorance that strikes me as desperation. I don't think it is on a par with other reckless politics that onmyknees has indicated is 'just as bad', either way its a risky strategy.

The chaotic politics in Somalia is gradually seeping into Kenya, and by extension Uganda; most recently with the kidnappings around Lamu near the Somali border. The disabled French hostage, Marie Dedout, has now died; an English woman remains unaccounted for, as are two Spanish aid workers who were working with Medecins sans Frontieres in a huge Sonali refugee camp.
But the al-Shabab militia claimed responsility for two bombings in Kampala last year that killed 74 people. Evidently, there is some anxiety at the potential for east Africa to enter a phase of de-stabilisation, not least because we are entering the 'Pirate season' in the Indian Ocean.

Lumbaugh can criticise Obama's deployment of US Advisers to Africa, that's politics, but to defend the LRA is a violation of basic human decency -one hopes he will have the decency to apologise to the victims. Perhaps a trip to the region to meet them would awaken the conscience of this deeply committed Christian.

[Silcc69]

Some...A lot of people don't. But in a mad rush to fling feces at the president Mad Rush picked up the story of Obama's campaign against the Lord's Resistance Army of Murderers, Cutthroats, Rapists, Kidnappers and Child Molesters and ran with it before doing absolutely any research. No wait, he asked Dawn,Brian and Snerdly whether they ever heard of the Lord's Resistance Army and amazingly these radio newsroom hacks were as completely in the dark as Mad Rush himself! This story is no big surprise. It's completely characteristic of the right's current modus operandi: blindly obstruct every move Obama makes, ask questions later. I did in fact laugh my ass off at the sheer stupidity of Mad Rush's ignorance, his lack of journalistic integrity and at the idiotic way he showed his hand (once again). But it also pained me to be reminded that there are people with voluminous megaphones that are so ignorant, so biased and so irresponsible.

True true but it's a shame that he can get away with this shit.

[Faldur]

You bloviate on the radio for 3 hours a day, 5 days a week your bound to say some stupid shit. Its obvious he did a quick scan of who the LRA was and took it for face value. I think if the microscope was turned another direction you would find many statements that are far more offensive.

"I do say that I am in favor of the return of the guillotine and thats for the worst of the worst of the guilty." "And if they are unable to live on that amount of that amount then they should, you know, go to re-education camps and if that doesn't help, then being beheaded." Roseanne Barr

"You guys see Live and Let Die, the great Bond film with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy, Mr. Big? In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up. I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet. But we’ll be there to watch. I think he’s Mr. Big, I think Yaphet Kotto. Are you watching, Rush?" -- Chris Matthews

"I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn't be dying needlessly tomorrow....I'm just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That's a fact." -- Bill Maher

"Drudge? Aw, Drudge, somebody ought to wrap a strong Republican entrail around his neck and hoist him up about six feet in the air and watch him bounce." --Mike Malloy

"F*** God D*mned Joe the God D*mned Motherf*cking plumber! I want Motherf*cking Joe the plumber dead." -- Liberal talk show host Charles Karel Bouley on the air.

I will however point out his blatant misstatement, "Lord’s Resistance Army are Christians. It means God." It most certainly does not, it means Followers of Christ. :)

[Kareninfife]

Let's get it right, the whole financial problem has been DESIGNED to happen by ONE group - The Rotheschilds. They want to control the World's economy themselves and have everyone as their slaves. They control the banks in EVERY nation except (now) four. Cuba, Iran, Somalia and North Korea - look in your newspapers and see where the "trouble" areas of the World are - these 4 countries. Libya was the last country which was taken over by them. Note the FIRST thing the NTC did was to establish a BANK with the help of NATO. NATO and the US are controlled by The Rotheschilds - check your history.
For example:
Who started the American Civil War. The Confederate States.
Who sponsored the Confederate States - The Rotheschilds
Who did Lincoln ask for money from - The Rotheschilds
Did he get it? - NO
Why?? - Because The Rotheschildes wanted 36% interest per annum.
Who have Lincoln money to fight the Confederacy and The Rotheschildes?? - Tsar Alexander of Russia.
Why?? - Because The Rotheschilds had tried to take over Russia.
Result?? - Nathan Rotheschild told the Tsar that he would pay for his support of Lincoln at sometime in the future.
Result: - The Russian revolution of 1917 - sponsored by The Rotheschilds.

The Rotheschilds OWN the Federal Reserve Bank after it was set-up ILLEGALLY in 1913.
Kennedy tried to finish it using Executive Order 11110 - READ IT - It is on the Internet.
Kennedy was assassinated because he wanted the USA free of The Rotheschilds.
The Rotheschilds control the US Senate and Congress and all of the Government. Look at teh number of people with dual nationality (Israeli - American) running the country in key positions. Dual nationality in the USA is ILLEGAL - so how do they do it????
GET RID OF THE ROTHESCHILDS AND THEIR TRIBE OF HELPERS AND HAVE A PEACEFUL WORLD.
The Rotheschilds have been responsible for most Wars since the 18th Century - it is TRUE.
They are NOT Jews, REAL Semetic Jews - they are Ashkenazi Jews (note the ending "AshkeNAZI" jews, who are not "real" Jews - they are imposters.

[Stavros]

You bloviate on the radio for 3 hours a day, 5 days a week your bound to say some stupid shit. Its obvious he did a quick scan of who the LRA was and took it for face value. I think if the microscope was turned another direction you would find many statements that are far more offensive.

"I do say that I am in favor of the return of the guillotine and thats for the worst of the worst of the guilty." "And if they are unable to live on that amount of that amount then they should, you know, go to re-education camps and if that doesn't help, then being beheaded." Roseanne Barr

"You guys see Live and Let Die, the great Bond film with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy, Mr. Big? In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up. I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet. But we’ll be there to watch. I think he’s Mr. Big, I think Yaphet Kotto. Are you watching, Rush?" -- Chris Matthews

"I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn't be dying needlessly tomorrow....I'm just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That's a fact." -- Bill Maher

"Drudge? Aw, Drudge, somebody ought to wrap a strong Republican entrail around his neck and hoist him up about six feet in the air and watch him bounce." --Mike Malloy

"F*** God D*mned Joe the God D*mned Motherf*cking plumber! I want Motherf*cking Joe the plumber dead." -- Liberal talk show host Charles Karel Bouley on the air.

I will however point out his blatant misstatement, "Lord’s Resistance Army are Christians. It means God." It most certainly does not, it means Followers of Christ. :)

Faldur, Alice Lakwena was a 'spirit-medium' and mystic among the Acholi in Northern Uganda when she started the Holy Spirit Movement that morphed into the Lord's Resistance Army under Joseph Kony -there were elements of Christianity in Lakwena and also in Kony but the ideology of the LRA is a hybrid of confused sources, if anything it is 'God' rather than Christ from whom the LRA claim their bogus authority to kill, main, torture and abduct. Politically they are one of the many groups opposed to Yowari Museveni who, for all his faults is seen as a stable leader in a volatile region. So you are wrong about Christ.

You are also on feeble ground when you quote Americans, most of whom I have never heard of, insulting American politicians or saying nasty things -that is qualitatively different from Limbaugh adopting a 'terrorist' group for no other reason than to 'spite' the President of the USA -as I said, he now has a chance to apologise; and I think he should take it.

[Stavros]

NATO and the US are controlled by The Rotheschilds - check your history.
The Rotheschilds

'Kareninfife'
I have edited your hysterical post -you might want to check your spelling as well as your history -its not my history or the history of anyone else.

[Kareninfife]

Some proof of who was behind the invasion of Libya

http://www.youtube.c...u/0/xuBbHE0laTs (http://www.youtube.com/user/108morris108#p/u/0/xuBbHE0laTs)

Some truths about Libya:
Testimony of Libya - Lizzy Phelan - Свидетель�тво из Ливии (English) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFvpfkUyBqE)



The Large Families that rule the world
18.10.2011
Some people have started realizing that there are large financial groups that dominate the world. Forget the political intrigues, conflicts, revolutions and wars. It is not pure chance. Everything has been planned for a long time.

Some call it "conspiracy theories" or New World Order. Anyway, the key to understanding the current political and economic events is a restricted core of families who have accumulated more wealth and power.

We are speaking of 6, 8 or maybe 12 families who truly dominate the world. Know that it is a mystery difficult to unravel.

We will not be far from the truth by citing Goldman Sachs, Rockefellers, Loebs Kuh and Lehmans in New York, the Rothschilds of Paris and London, the Warburgs of Hamburg, Paris and Lazards Israel Moses Seifs Rome.

Many people have heard of the Bilderberg Group, Illuminati or the Trilateral Commission. But what are the names of the families who run the world and have control of states and international organizations like the UN, NATO or the IMF?

To try to answer this question, we can start with the easiest: inventory, the world's largest banks, and see who the shareholders are and who make the decisions.

0
SharePrint version Font Size Send to friendThe world's largest companies are now: Bank of America, JP Morgan, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.


Let us now review who their shareholders are.


Bank of America:
State Street Corporation, Vanguard Group, BlackRock, FMR (Fidelity), Paulson, JP Morgan, T. Rowe, Capital World Investors, AXA, Bank of NY, Mellon.


JP Morgan:

State Street Corp., Vanguard Group, FMR, BlackRock, T. Rowe, AXA, Capital World Investor, Capital Research Global Investor, Northern Trust Corp. and Bank of Mellon.


Citigroup:
State Street Corporation, Vanguard Group, BlackRock, Paulson, FMR, Capital World Investor, JP Morgan, Northern Trust Corporation, Fairhome Capital Mgmt and Bank of NY Mellon.

Wells Fargo:
Berkshire Hathaway, FMR, State Street, Vanguard Group, Capital World Investors, BlackRock, Wellington Mgmt, AXA, T. Rowe and Davis Selected Advisers.



We can see that now there appears to be a nucleus present in all banks: State Street Corporation, Vanguard Group, BlackRock and FMR (Fidelity). To avoid repeating them, we will now call them the "big four"



Goldman Sachs:

"The big four," Wellington, Capital World Investors, AXA, Massachusetts Financial Service and T. Rowe.


Morgan Stanley:
"The big four," Mitsubishi UFJ, Franklin Resources, AXA, T. Rowe, Bank of NY Mellon e Jennison Associates. Rowe, Bank of NY Mellon and Jennison Associates.

　

We can just about always verify the names of major shareholders. To go further, we can now try to find out the shareholders of these companies and shareholders of major banks worldwide.


Bank of NY Mellon:
Davis Selected, Massachusetts Financial Services, Capital Research Global Investor, Dodge, Cox, Southeatern Asset Mgmt. and ... "The big four."


State Street Corporation (one of the "big four"):
Massachusetts Financial Services, Capital Research Global Investor, Barrow Hanley, GE, Putnam Investment and ... The "big four" (shareholders themselves!).

BlackRock (another of the "big four"):
PNC, Barclays e CIC.


Who is behind the PNC? FMR (Fidelity), BlackRock, State Street, etc.
And behind Barclays? BlackRock


And we could go on for hours, passing by tax havens in the Cayman Islands, Monaco or the legal domicile of Shell companies in Liechtenstein. A network where companies are always the same, but never a name of a family.

In short: the eight largest U.S. financial companies (JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, U.S. Bancorp, Bank of New York Mellon and Morgan Stanley) are 100% controlled by ten shareholders and we have four companies always present in all decisions: BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard and Fidelity.


In addition, the Federal Reserve is comprised of 12 banks, represented by a board of seven people, which comprises representatives of the "big four," which in turn are present in all other entities.

In short, the Federal Reserve is controlled by four large private companies: BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard and Fidelity. These companies control U.S. monetary policy (and world) without any control or "democratic" choice. These companies launched and participated in the current worldwide economic crisis and managed to become even more enriched.

To finish, a look at some of the companies controlled by this "big four" group



Alcoa Inc.

Altria Group Inc.

American International Group Inc.

AT&T Inc.

Boeing Co.

Caterpillar Inc.

Coca-Cola Co.

DuPont & Co.

Exxon Mobil Corp.

General Electric Co.

General Motors Corporation

Hewlett-Packard Co.

Home Depot Inc.

Honeywell International Inc.

Intel Corp.

International Business Machines Corp

Johnson & Johnson

JP Morgan Chase & Co.

McDonald's Corp.

Merck & Co. Inc.

Microsoft Corp.

3M Co.

Pfizer Inc.

Procter & Gamble Co.

United Technologies Corp.

Verizon Communications Inc.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc.


Time Warner

Walt Disney

Viacom

Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.,

CBS Corporation

NBC Universal



The same "big four" control the vast majority of European companies counted on the stock exchange.

In addition, all these people run the large financial institutions, such as the IMF, the European Central Bank or the World Bank, and were "trained" and remain "employees" of the "big four" that formed them.

The names of the families that control the "big four", never appear.

Why don't the people of the USA pull their collective finger out of their A**es and do something about it.

GET RID OF THE LOT OF THEM

[FistFuk]

Let's get it right, the whole financial problem has been DESIGNED to happen by ONE group - The Rotheschilds. They want to control the World's economy themselves and have everyone as their slaves. They control the banks in EVERY nation except (now) four. Cuba, Iran, Somalia and North Korea - look in your newspapers and see where the "trouble" areas of the World are - these 4 countries. Libya was the last country which was taken over by them. Note the FIRST thing the NTC did was to establish a BANK with the help of NATO. NATO and the US are controlled by The Rotheschilds - check your history.
For example:
Who started the American Civil War. The Confederate States.
Who sponsored the Confederate States - The Rotheschilds
Who did Lincoln ask for money from - The Rotheschilds
Did he get it? - NO
Why?? - Because The Rotheschildes wanted 36% interest per annum.
Who have Lincoln money to fight the Confederacy and The Rotheschildes?? - Tsar Alexander of Russia.
Why?? - Because The Rotheschilds had tried to take over Russia.
Result?? - Nathan Rotheschild told the Tsar that he would pay for his support of Lincoln at sometime in the future.
Result: - The Russian revolution of 1917 - sponsored by The Rotheschilds.

The Rotheschilds OWN the Federal Reserve Bank after it was set-up ILLEGALLY in 1913.
Kennedy tried to finish it using Executive Order 11110 - READ IT - It is on the Internet.
Kennedy was assassinated because he wanted the USA free of The Rotheschilds.
The Rotheschilds control the US Senate and Congress and all of the Government. Look at teh number of people with dual nationality (Israeli - American) running the country in key positions. Dual nationality in the USA is ILLEGAL - so how do they do it????
GET RID OF THE ROTHESCHILDS AND THEIR TRIBE OF HELPERS AND HAVE A PEACEFUL WORLD.
The Rotheschilds have been responsible for most Wars since the 18th Century - it is TRUE.
They are NOT Jews, REAL Semetic Jews - they are Ashkenazi Jews (note the ending "AshkeNAZI" jews, who are not "real" Jews - they are imposters.

Keep this theme going, I love crazy conspiracy threads.

From what I understand so far here is that the Rothschild family is apparently composed of Jewish Nazi's who need four more banks, and then they rule the world. They finance global conflict, because if they don't land the Somali bank deal, then the plan is totally fucked for some reason.

Continue posting.

[Faldur]

So you are wrong about Christ.

Not sure about all the Uganda stuff, I really haven't studied it much. I do know whats happening there is fucked up. Anyone who is killing innocents, no matter the religion or belief should be stopped. I was pointing out Limbaugh's incorrect definition of the word "Christian", my definition is correct.


You are also on feeble ground when you quote Americans, most of whom I have never heard of, insulting American politicians or saying nasty things -that is qualitatively different from Limbaugh adopting a 'terrorist' group for no other reason than to 'spite' the President of the USA -as I said, he now has a chance to apologise; and I think he should take it.

Well the folks I quoted are all part of the media here. The first Miss Barr is currently a candidate for president. Mr. Mathews has his own news talk tv program, look him up on MSNBC. Mr. Malloy is probably one of the top liberal talk radio hosts, his show is still on the air. He is the perfect comparison to Limbaugh. The rest are current and rather well known here. They all spend time much like Mr. Limbaugh filling our air and tele's with noise. They are very accurate comparisons, (although Limbaughs audience is much larger), and not a one has backed down from their statements.

An apology from Rush? Your kidding right? He is an independent citizen and as long as he has listeners, and people who pay him to do what he does he is going to say outrageous stuff. Its how they get ratings. He could care less about apologizing to anyone.

[Faldur]

Keep this theme going, I love crazy conspiracy threads.

From what I understand so far here is that the Rothschild family is apparently composed of Jewish Nazi's who need four more banks, and then they rule the world. They finance global conflict, because if they don't land the Somali bank deal, then the plan is totally fucked for some reason.

Continue posting.

Its on the internet, its got to be true!

http://www.greatdreams.com/rd-table.jpg

[FistFuk]

Some proof of who was behind the invasion of Libya

http://www.youtube.c...u/0/xuBbHE0laTs (http://www.youtube.com/user/108morris108#p/u/0/xuBbHE0laTs)

Some truths about Libya:
Testimony of Libya - Lizzy Phelan - Свидетель�тво из Ливии (English) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFvpfkUyBqE)



The Large Families that rule the world
18.10.2011
Some people have started realizing that there are large financial groups that dominate the world. Forget the political intrigues, conflicts, revolutions and wars. It is not pure chance. Everything has been planned for a long time.

Some call it "conspiracy theories" or New World Order. Anyway, the key to understanding the current political and economic events is a restricted core of families who have accumulated more wealth and power.

We are speaking of 6, 8 or maybe 12 families who truly dominate the world. Know that it is a mystery difficult to unravel.

We will not be far from the truth by citing Goldman Sachs, Rockefellers, Loebs Kuh and Lehmans in New York, the Rothschilds of Paris and London, the Warburgs of Hamburg, Paris and Lazards Israel Moses Seifs Rome.

Many people have heard of the Bilderberg Group, Illuminati or the Trilateral Commission. But what are the names of the families who run the world and have control of states and international organizations like the UN, NATO or the IMF?

To try to answer this question, we can start with the easiest: inventory, the world's largest banks, and see who the shareholders are and who make the decisions.

0
SharePrint version Font Size Send to friendThe world's largest companies are now: Bank of America, JP Morgan, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.


Let us now review who their shareholders are.


Bank of America:
State Street Corporation, Vanguard Group, BlackRock, FMR (Fidelity), Paulson, JP Morgan, T. Rowe, Capital World Investors, AXA, Bank of NY, Mellon.


JP Morgan:

State Street Corp., Vanguard Group, FMR, BlackRock, T. Rowe, AXA, Capital World Investor, Capital Research Global Investor, Northern Trust Corp. and Bank of Mellon.


Citigroup:
State Street Corporation, Vanguard Group, BlackRock, Paulson, FMR, Capital World Investor, JP Morgan, Northern Trust Corporation, Fairhome Capital Mgmt and Bank of NY Mellon.

Wells Fargo:
Berkshire Hathaway, FMR, State Street, Vanguard Group, Capital World Investors, BlackRock, Wellington Mgmt, AXA, T. Rowe and Davis Selected Advisers.



We can see that now there appears to be a nucleus present in all banks: State Street Corporation, Vanguard Group, BlackRock and FMR (Fidelity). To avoid repeating them, we will now call them the "big four"



Goldman Sachs:

"The big four," Wellington, Capital World Investors, AXA, Massachusetts Financial Service and T. Rowe.


Morgan Stanley:
"The big four," Mitsubishi UFJ, Franklin Resources, AXA, T. Rowe, Bank of NY Mellon e Jennison Associates. Rowe, Bank of NY Mellon and Jennison Associates.

　

We can just about always verify the names of major shareholders. To go further, we can now try to find out the shareholders of these companies and shareholders of major banks worldwide.


Bank of NY Mellon:
Davis Selected, Massachusetts Financial Services, Capital Research Global Investor, Dodge, Cox, Southeatern Asset Mgmt. and ... "The big four."


State Street Corporation (one of the "big four"):
Massachusetts Financial Services, Capital Research Global Investor, Barrow Hanley, GE, Putnam Investment and ... The "big four" (shareholders themselves!).

BlackRock (another of the "big four"):
PNC, Barclays e CIC.


Who is behind the PNC? FMR (Fidelity), BlackRock, State Street, etc.
And behind Barclays? BlackRock


And we could go on for hours, passing by tax havens in the Cayman Islands, Monaco or the legal domicile of Shell companies in Liechtenstein. A network where companies are always the same, but never a name of a family.

In short: the eight largest U.S. financial companies (JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, U.S. Bancorp, Bank of New York Mellon and Morgan Stanley) are 100% controlled by ten shareholders and we have four companies always present in all decisions: BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard and Fidelity.


In addition, the Federal Reserve is comprised of 12 banks, represented by a board of seven people, which comprises representatives of the "big four," which in turn are present in all other entities.

In short, the Federal Reserve is controlled by four large private companies: BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard and Fidelity. These companies control U.S. monetary policy (and world) without any control or "democratic" choice. These companies launched and participated in the current worldwide economic crisis and managed to become even more enriched.

To finish, a look at some of the companies controlled by this "big four" group



Alcoa Inc.

Altria Group Inc.

American International Group Inc.

AT&T Inc.

Boeing Co.

Caterpillar Inc.

Coca-Cola Co.

DuPont & Co.

Exxon Mobil Corp.

General Electric Co.

General Motors Corporation

Hewlett-Packard Co.

Home Depot Inc.

Honeywell International Inc.

Intel Corp.

International Business Machines Corp

Johnson & Johnson

JP Morgan Chase & Co.

McDonald's Corp.

Merck & Co. Inc.

Microsoft Corp.

3M Co.

Pfizer Inc.

Procter & Gamble Co.

United Technologies Corp.

Verizon Communications Inc.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc.


Time Warner

Walt Disney

Viacom

Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.,

CBS Corporation

NBC Universal



The same "big four" control the vast majority of European companies counted on the stock exchange.

In addition, all these people run the large financial institutions, such as the IMF, the European Central Bank or the World Bank, and were "trained" and remain "employees" of the "big four" that formed them.

The names of the families that control the "big four", never appear.

Why don't the people of the USA pull their collective finger out of their A**es and do something about it.

GET RID OF THE LOT OF THEM

Here's the central problem with "global conspiracy posting", it's like showing up for work one day and realizing someone in the main office is doing less work than you, but making more money. Shit happens.

The person in the main office is probably thinking "people outside my office are possibly stealing pens and staplers!"

The end result is the boss get's a better lunch break.

[robertlouis]

Let's get it right, the whole financial problem has been DESIGNED to happen by ONE group - The Rotheschilds. They want to control the World's economy themselves and have everyone as their slaves. They control the banks in EVERY nation except (now) four. Cuba, Iran, Somalia and North Korea - look in your newspapers and see where the "trouble" areas of the World are - these 4 countries. Libya was the last country which was taken over by them. Note the FIRST thing the NTC did was to establish a BANK with the help of NATO. NATO and the US are controlled by The Rotheschilds - check your history.
For example:
Who started the American Civil War. The Confederate States.
Who sponsored the Confederate States - The Rotheschilds
Who did Lincoln ask for money from - The Rotheschilds
Did he get it? - NO
Why?? - Because The Rotheschildes wanted 36% interest per annum.
Who have Lincoln money to fight the Confederacy and The Rotheschildes?? - Tsar Alexander of Russia.
Why?? - Because The Rotheschilds had tried to take over Russia.
Result?? - Nathan Rotheschild told the Tsar that he would pay for his support of Lincoln at sometime in the future.
Result: - The Russian revolution of 1917 - sponsored by The Rotheschilds.

The Rotheschilds OWN the Federal Reserve Bank after it was set-up ILLEGALLY in 1913.
Kennedy tried to finish it using Executive Order 11110 - READ IT - It is on the Internet.
Kennedy was assassinated because he wanted the USA free of The Rotheschilds.
The Rotheschilds control the US Senate and Congress and all of the Government. Look at teh number of people with dual nationality (Israeli - American) running the country in key positions. Dual nationality in the USA is ILLEGAL - so how do they do it????
GET RID OF THE ROTHESCHILDS AND THEIR TRIBE OF HELPERS AND HAVE A PEACEFUL WORLD.
The Rotheschilds have been responsible for most Wars since the 18th Century - it is TRUE.
They are NOT Jews, REAL Semetic Jews - they are Ashkenazi Jews (note the ending "AshkeNAZI" jews, who are not "real" Jews - they are imposters.

Karen, there are millions of Ashkenazy jews. They are the descendants of the European jewish diaspora, more secular in worship and tone, and they suffered more in the holocaust than any other jewish group as a result.

To embolden the "nazi" is an obscene insult and you should be ashamed of yourself. Next, no doubt, you'll be rolling out the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and waving your BNP credentials.

My parents were Fifers. If they were alive today they would happily disown you.

[needsum]

In its purest form, I support the protests bcause there is indeed some sort of change that needs to happen in this country from the top down. But in saying that, the "down" portion needs to do some fucking housecleaning as well. that means me, you and all the rest of the fucks in this country.

You wanna know why the middle class is dying and nobody can afford healthcare, tuition, etc? because the majority of us ARE NOT LIVING AT OR BELOW OUR MEANS. Look at your monthly cashflow and see how fucked up it is. do you have a smartphone, and an Ipad, and do you pay for cable and high speed internet, and do you drive a new luxury car or SUV, and do you own a big house, bigger than you need? Do you have credit balances that you carry from month to month? do you "need": those credit cards to get by every month? yes? then you're fucking doing it wrong my friends. cut all the bullshit in your life that you really don't need and you'll soon see just how much you really CAN afford. People believe that they are entitled to things in this life, "just because". When I was a kid in the 80's and early 90's, the people who drove BMWs and Mercedes wre the people who could afford them! Now, everyone can "afford" them if they pay a big lease payment (which could be going to a monthly healthcare payment instead, or ito savings for tuition). I can't tell you how many kids I see driving high-end luxury cars, and are living their lives to support the car. like driving a BMW and having that pizza delivery sign on top. "Yo, I live at home with my momz and I have three jobs but I'm still broke. But dayum son, check out my fly ride!" Its this kind of mentality thats killing us. Lets go to target for some milk and bread, and come out with a new flatscreen tv, "becase it was on sale, only $350 for a 44"! you can't beat that deal! Umm, yeah you can. when you could be putting that cash n the bank for the day when shit hits the fan and you find yourself flat busted, but have some great big TVs to decorate your walls once the cable is shut off!

Simply put--people wanna protest "wall Street" or whatever else, fine, go for it, I hope you invoke some serious positive change. But you better check yourselves in the process, becuse if you don't, no change from above is going to make a damn bit of difference if you can't take care of yourself.

[soul4real]

In its purest form, I support the protests bcause there is indeed some sort of change that needs to happen in this country from the top down. But in saying that, the "down" portion needs to do some fucking housecleaning as well. that means me, you and all the rest of the fucks in this country.

You wanna know why the middle class is dying and nobody can afford healthcare, tuition, etc? because the majority of us ARE NOT LIVING AT OR BELOW OUR MEANS. Look at your monthly cashflow and see how fucked up it is. do you have a smartphone, and an Ipad, and do you pay for cable and high speed internet, and do you drive a new luxury car or SUV, and do you own a big house, bigger than you need? Do you have credit balances that you carry from month to month? do you "need": those credit cards to get by every month? yes? then you're fucking doing it wrong my friends. cut all the bullshit in your life that you really don't need and you'll soon see just how much you really CAN afford. People believe that they are entitled to things in this life, "just because". When I was a kid in the 80's and early 90's, the people who drove BMWs and Mercedes wre the people who could afford them! Now, everyone can "afford" them if they pay a big lease payment (which could be going to a monthly healthcare payment instead, or ito savings for tuition). I can't tell you how many kids I see driving high-end luxury cars, and are living their lives to support the car. like driving a BMW and having that pizza delivery sign on top. "Yo, I live at home with my momz and I have three jobs but I'm still broke. But dayum son, check out my fly ride!" Its this kind of mentality thats killing us. Lets go to target for some milk and bread, and come out with a new flatscreen tv, "becase it was on sale, only $350 for a 44"! you can't beat that deal! Umm, yeah you can. when you could be putting that cash n the bank for the day when shit hits the fan and you find yourself flat busted, but have some great big TVs to decorate your walls once the cable is shut off!

Simply put--people wanna protest "wall Street" or whatever else, fine, go for it, I hope you invoke some serious positive change. But you better check yourselves in the process, becuse if you don't, no change from above is going to make a damn bit of difference if you can't take care of yourself.


Just had a good debate at Occupy wall street today about universal health care

[BluegrassCat]

You wanna know why the middle class is dying and nobody can afford healthcare, tuition, etc? because the majority of us ARE NOT LIVING AT OR BELOW OUR MEANS. Look at your monthly cashflow and see how fucked up it is. do you have a smartphone, and an Ipad, and do you pay for cable and high speed internet, and do you drive a new luxury car or SUV, and do you own a big house, bigger than you need? Do you have credit balances that you carry from month to month? do you "need": those credit cards to get by every month? yes? then you're fucking doing it wrong my friends. cut all the bullshit in your life that you really don't need and you'll soon see just how much you really CAN afford. People believe that they are entitled to things in this life, "just because". When I was a kid in the 80's and early 90's, the people who drove BMWs and Mercedes wre the people who could afford them! Now, everyone can "afford" them if they pay a big lease payment (which could be going to a monthly healthcare payment instead, or ito savings for tuition). I can't tell you how many kids I see driving high-end luxury cars, and are living their lives to support the car. like driving a BMW and having that pizza delivery sign on top. "Yo, I live at home with my momz and I have three jobs but I'm still broke. But dayum son, check out my fly ride!" Its this kind of mentality thats killing us. Lets go to target for some milk and bread, and come out with a new flatscreen tv, "becase it was on sale, only $350 for a 44"! you can't beat that deal! Umm, yeah you can. when you could be putting that cash n the bank for the day when shit hits the fan and you find yourself flat busted, but have some great big TVs to decorate your walls once the cable is shut off!




Although probably not the author's intent this is one of the best arguments I've heard for an individual mandate for health insurance and for increasing Social Security taxes and benefits.

[BellaBellucci]

You wanna know why the middle class is dying and nobody can afford healthcare, tuition, etc? because the majority of us ARE NOT LIVING AT OR BELOW OUR MEANS.

You're right, but I fail to see how that gives the government the right to tell us how to spend our money when most people are still trying to catch up on past debt, particularly if they've learned their lesson.

I'm sorry, but IMO, debt is a much bigger problem than health care in this country, and one that will continue to grow if we keep spending... even if it's for health care. I really feel like overhauls to the system should have waited at least until we were independently, and as a nation, back in the black.

AC/DC - Back In Black (Live) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fSEjlLQcRY&ob=av3n)

~BB~

[Kareninfife]

Yes, robertlouis (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/member.php?u=74907), as Willie Hamilton once said " You could put a red rosette on a collie dug and the people of Fife would vote for it". So much for Fifers with an independent mind.

Ashkenazi Jews are not real (semite) Jews. They converted to Taludism in the 8th Century and lived in the area between the Black Sea and Caspian Sea.

I note that you did not say anything about The Rotheschilds sponsoring the American Civil War or any of the other "conspiracy theories like other half or no-brains in thei blog. Maybe they just read and listen to the trash and lies given to them by CNN, Fox News etc., etc., or maybe like the majority of Americans they cannot read or assimilate in their mind anything more intelligent that Bugs Bunny. It is said that your wonderful (last) president George W. Bush had an IQ of 78. Actually mine is 151, if you wish to know, as was invited to join Mensa.
I am NOT a member of the BNP and would not join such a political party - i am not a member of any political party as I believe political parties to be NON-DEMOCRATIC, so why have them??
If you care to do a little investigation you would find that both Osbourne (current UK chancellor of the Exchequer) and Mandelleson (ex Labour MP and Lord high Almighty in the Labour movement (only position he does not hold is Archbishop of Canterbury - but I suppose, even as a Jew, he is working on it), were both on holiday TOGETHER in 2009 at the home of The Rotheschilds. Doesn't that sound interesting. Don't you wonder why?? The 2010 election was a very close run thing - were they getting their orders on how to run the economy if either side won??
As to The Holocaust. PLEASE show me ONE arial photograph or photograph taken at ground level when the camps were liberated which shows any form of gas chamber in any of the camps. There are NONE - don't you wonder why????? Maybe there were none. Also interesting that the number allegedly killed has been reduced from 6 million to about one and a half million. The Red Cross who had representatives in ALL camps can only confirm some 271,000 inmates who died, mainly from disease.
World Jewish population in 1938 = just over 15 million (from official figures). World Jewish population in 1946 = 15 million (again from official figures. If 6 million died in the holocaust then between 1945 and 1946, they must have been breeding faster than rabbits!!!! Why not look up the figures yourself - they are all easy to find, IF YOU TAKE THE TIME TO LOOK.
Yes, as one American said "you can foll some of the people all of the time and you can full all of the people some of the time, but you cannot foll all of the people all of the time." Obviously the general American public are the "some" of the people who are fooled ALL of the time.

[Jericho]

Oy Vey! :roll:

[Faldur]

I love how they bitch like hell about tuition costs, then why the hell are you on wall street? College tuition has exceeded inflation, even health care inflation. If you got a problem with tuition for goodness sakes march on the universities.

[robertlouis]

Yes, robertlouis (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/member.php?u=74907), as Willie Hamilton once said " You could put a red rosette on a collie dug and the people of Fife would vote for it". So much for Fifers with an independent mind.

Ashkenazi Jews are not real (semite) Jews. They converted to Taludism in the 8th Century and lived in the area between the Black Sea and Caspian Sea.

I note that you did not say anything about The Rotheschilds sponsoring the American Civil War or any of the other "conspiracy theories like other half or no-brains in thei blog. Maybe they just read and listen to the trash and lies given to them by CNN, Fox News etc., etc., or maybe like the majority of Americans they cannot read or assimilate in their mind anything more intelligent that Bugs Bunny. It is said that your wonderful (last) president George W. Bush had an IQ of 78. Actually mine is 151, if you wish to know, as was invited to join Mensa.
I am NOT a member of the BNP and would not join such a political party - i am not a member of any political party as I believe political parties to be NON-DEMOCRATIC, so why have them??
If you care to do a little investigation you would find that both Osbourne (current UK chancellor of the Exchequer) and Mandelleson (ex Labour MP and Lord high Almighty in the Labour movement (only position he does not hold is Archbishop of Canterbury - but I suppose, even as a Jew, he is working on it), were both on holiday TOGETHER in 2009 at the home of The Rotheschilds. Doesn't that sound interesting. Don't you wonder why?? The 2010 election was a very close run thing - were they getting their orders on how to run the economy if either side won??
As to The Holocaust. PLEASE show me ONE arial photograph or photograph taken at ground level when the camps were liberated which shows any form of gas chamber in any of the camps. There are NONE - don't you wonder why????? Maybe there were none. Also interesting that the number allegedly killed has been reduced from 6 million to about one and a half million. The Red Cross who had representatives in ALL camps can only confirm some 271,000 inmates who died, mainly from disease.
World Jewish population in 1938 = just over 15 million (from official figures). World Jewish population in 1946 = 15 million (again from official figures. If 6 million died in the holocaust then between 1945 and 1946, they must have been breeding faster than rabbits!!!! Why not look up the figures yourself - they are all easy to find, IF YOU TAKE THE TIME TO LOOK.
Yes, as one American said "you can foll some of the people all of the time and you can full all of the people some of the time, but you cannot foll all of the people all of the time." Obviously the general American public are the "some" of the people who are fooled ALL of the time.

You can post all you like, Karen, but I'll have no truck with a holocaust denier under any circumstances. Goodbye.

[trish]

Don't you just love conspiracy theorists?

[Heather Moorland]

To embolden the "nazi" is an obscene insult ....

No it is not! I have been to the west bank (the west bank of the Jordan river, not some wallstreet bank) And the jewish settlers I met there reminded me very much of the nazis I have seen in hollywood movies. I really dislike what they are doing to the true inhapitants of the land.
By the way who does this stupid god think he is? - giving somboddy elses land to a religious group? I hope the other gods put him on trial for crimes against divinity one day.

[SebBM]

OWS has evolved into something malicious due to the lack of unity in their message. It's impossible to protest effectively without clear unified direction.

The culprit for our economic woes isn't socialism or capitalism, left wing or right wing; it's the banking system being rewarded by the governments for their management failure; it's spending money we don't have; it's corporations and governments sleeping together (what some might call fascism).

Knowing this, a clear concise message needs to be developed to effectively broadcast what the people want. And realistically the march needs to be on DC not wall street.

[Stavros]

Kareninfife, if you have an IQ of 151 but cannot spell Rothschild with any consistency it merely proves you passed a test -IQ is clearly not a measure of intelligence.

You have said nothing in your posts that has not been aired in public for decades, in violation of truth based on the documentary evidence provided -in the case of the mass extermination of Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Communists and the disabled- by the Germans who carried out these atrocities, and recorded them on film and in print.

You are free to deny reality, to claim the earth is flat, the moon is made of green cheese and that Martians have green skin, red horns and squeaky voices, but that don't make it so. It is pointless taking on your Abraham Lincoln/Civil War fantasy, because you have already decided it is a fact.

It is dispiriting to find such one-dimensional discrimination on a board devoted to the people who have suffered from it in the past, continue to suffer from it today, and will doubtless be the subject of ridicule and abuse for years to come -you might want to use your energies doing something positive for this community by exchanging your loathing of 'the Rothschilds' for a loathing of prejudice - but it takes courage.

In wi' your gruntle then, puir wheengin' saul,
Lap up the ugsome aidle wi' the lave,
What gin its your ain vomit that you swill
And frae life's gantin' and unfaddomed grave?

[Heather Moorland]

As for the consentrationcamps, there is a good reason why the holocaust denier get their message across. The rallity of the camps is much more complex than people normaly think.
The common myth is that 6 milion jews was gased in the consentration camps and that myth is not true. There may wery well have been 6 milion jew who died in WW II but only half of them made it to a consentration camp. There was never more than 3 million jews in the camps and most of them died from starvation, malnutrition, disease and overwork. It is estimated that about 70.000 was subjected to gaschambers. Posibly peoble who was unfit to work and posibly to get rid of them before the russans came.
Of those who didn't make it to consentration camp either died in the Warsaw getto or was mashineguned during "partisan operation" in the Ukarine. There are stories of entire villages who were driven together in the synagogue after the door was locked and a couple of hand grenades thrown inside. The exact number of dead is not know, but the official estimate of 6 milion in total is plausible.

By the way my gransmothers cousin died in a nazi consentration camp. He fell down from a watchtower. ;-)

[Stavros]

Heather, its not about numbers, it is about the principle that events in history that have been documented can not be challenged as if they never happened. The Romans really did invade Britain, we have evidence; they were not tourists; they stayed. The pseudo-historian David Irving once dismissed a critic who mentioned Anne Frank as a victim of the Nazi's -he said something like 'she died of typhus' -he didn't explain what a native of Amsterdam was doing in Poland in 1945, its not like she was on holiday. Same with your examples of people who died from hunger, or the Warsaw Ghetto, or the Ukraine. I am not opposed to the exacting standards of history and detailed accounts of what happened, and I accept that when it comes to precise numbers there is a sub-genre in history on this subject; but there is a difference between a more precise documentation of events and kareninfife's need to transform everything political into a unified conspiracy, based on no evidence at all. You could argue that people do not die from Malaria, but from the liver failure brought on by the infection of malarial parasites; that people don't die from AIDS but from cancer, and so on. But there are mosquitoes, there is a Human Immunodeficiency Virus, and there were Nazi's -someone has to make a stand for decency, as an alternative to something sinister, with a track record that shames humanity.

[Heather Moorland]

Stavros, No Anne Frank was not on a vacation to poland and the nazis did send a lot of people to consentration camp. Including other nazis who was so unlucky as to loose the internal powerstruggle.

But remember that Pellestinians dont just blow them selves up for the fun of it. They do because sombody stole their land and deny them a future. Those who stole their land happen to be a wacho religious cult who think that their god gave the land to them. Nazis or no nazis.

The worst thing is that the jews (or Israelis if you like) abuse those 6 million dead of WWII so that nobody will dare question their own geneside on the palestinian people.

That I find distasfull.

[Stavros]

Heather, the creation of Israel was motivated by political zionism, God and the Holocaust had little to do with it; most of Israel's political leaders have been atheists. Part of the tensions within Israel today are caused by the different agendas of the 'secular' Israelis, most of whom live in the densely populated coastal area between Jaffa and Haifa, and the Settlers and Religious sects who live between Hebron and Jerusalem and other parts of the occupied West Bank. Most of the Israelis who would prefer peace and co-existence with the Arabs have been ignored by the rejectionists led by Netanyahu who opposed to Oslo Accords and governs with fractious small parties in a coalition. The Palestinians do not blow themselves, full stop. The number of suicide bombers is tiny, most Palestinians are prepared to accept a just peace, and do not want violence -but as usual, you only need a small group prepared to cause mayhem and the whole community gets tarred with the one brush. The Holocaust might be used as a political weapon, that is unacceptable, but it happens -but it is a pity the Politics gets ignored in all the emotional twaddle about the Bible and Land, and so on: Israel is a political reality, created for political reasons -which is why there is a political solution -the key, in fact, is to generate trust on both sides, without that, working peace treaties are just pieces of paper.

[russtafa]

Heather, the creation of Israel was motivated by political zionism, God and the Holocaust had little to do with it; most of Israel's political leaders have been atheists. Part of the tensions within Israel today are caused by the different agendas of the 'secular' Israelis, most of whom live in the densely populated coastal area between Jaffa and Haifa, and the Settlers and Religious sects who live between Hebron and Jerusalem and other parts of the occupied West Bank. Most of the Israelis who would prefer peace and co-existence with the Arabs have been ignored by the rejectionists led by Netanyahu who opposed to Oslo Accords and governs with fractious small parties in a coalition. The Palestinians do not blow themselves, full stop. The number of suicide bombers is tiny, most Palestinians are prepared to accept a just peace, and do not want violence -but as usual, you only need a small group prepared to cause mayhem and the whole community gets tarred with the one brush. The Holocaust might be used as a political weapon, that is unacceptable, but it happens -but it is a pity the Politics gets ignored in all the emotional twaddle about the Bible and Land, and so on: Israel is a political reality, created for political reasons -which is why there is a political solution -the key, in fact, is to generate trust on both sides, without that, working peace treaties are just pieces of paper.i thought most of the countries in that region want to drive the jews into the sea as goal .if someone told me that i would not want to be negotiating with them lol

[BellaBellucci]

i thought most of the countries in that region want to drive the jews into the sea as goal .if someone told me that i would not want to be negotiating with them lol

They tend to waffle on that, and it's mostly rhetoric. It's been removed and re-added to the Hamas charter and M.O. many, many times. It has fluctuated more than the over/under on Lindsey Lohan's final arrest count by the time of her death. The most dismal part of the whole thing is that changes are often in response to criticisms from other Islamic hardliners.

Here's one recent article that discusses the subject in a way that isn't common in the mainstream news media: it actually features a well-reasoned defense of Hamas. But does anyone else think it's time for them to stand up for moderates?

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/27106/calls-destruction-israel-soas-lecture

~BB~

[runningdownthatdream]

Heather, the creation of Israel was motivated by political zionism, God and the Holocaust had little to do with it; most of Israel's political leaders have been atheists. Part of the tensions within Israel today are caused by the different agendas of the 'secular' Israelis, most of whom live in the densely populated coastal area between Jaffa and Haifa, and the Settlers and Religious sects who live between Hebron and Jerusalem and other parts of the occupied West Bank. Most of the Israelis who would prefer peace and co-existence with the Arabs have been ignored by the rejectionists led by Netanyahu who opposed to Oslo Accords and governs with fractious small parties in a coalition. The Palestinians do not blow themselves, full stop. The number of suicide bombers is tiny, most Palestinians are prepared to accept a just peace, and do not want violence -but as usual, you only need a small group prepared to cause mayhem and the whole community gets tarred with the one brush. The Holocaust might be used as a political weapon, that is unacceptable, but it happens -but it is a pity the Politics gets ignored in all the emotional twaddle about the Bible and Land, and so on: Israel is a political reality, created for political reasons -which is why there is a political solution -the key, in fact, is to generate trust on both sides, without that, working peace treaties are just pieces of paper.

Israel was created as a result of a guilt complex by Europe over their 1000 yr rejection of the Ashkenazi 'Jews' who were displaced after the fall of Khazaria. Those people as someone else mentioned earlier have nothing to do with the Sephardic Hebrew people from the Middle East who have lived with the Arabs for thousands of years. The Ashkenazi/Khazarian people roamed Europe and western Asia getting kicked in every place they went except Poland. Ever since they have managed to usurp the history of the real jews and continued to play on European guilt.

And stating that doesn't make me a Holocaust denier.

[Stavros]

"The Koran tells me if I die for my homeland, I’m a martyr and I long to be a martyr.”

Bella, HAMAS have had a strange history, that's true -the Israelis promoted HAMAS in the first Intifada in order to drive a wedge between Palestinians and Arafat who was considered the primary 'enemy' -HAMAS has veered between practical-reason prepared to sit down and negotiate with Israel, and the sort of nonsense from Tamimi your link provides, as evidenced in the quote from his speech in London -the Qu'ran does not tell anyone if they die for their homeland they will be a martyr, its just sophistry designed to impress a foreign audience and show defiance in the face of the dreadful siege of Gaza. And saying that Israel should 'come to an end' is also not the same as saying it should be destroyed -after all, if there were to be one state, multi-national, multi-religious and so on, Israel would be the wrong name for it.

Israel was created as a result of a guilt complex by Europe over their 1000 yr rejection of the Ashkenazi 'Jews' who were displaced after the fall of Khazaria. Those people as someone else mentioned earlier have nothing to do with the Sephardic Hebrew people from the Middle East who have lived with the Arabs for thousands of years. The Ashkenazi/Khazarian people roamed Europe and western Asia getting kicked in every place they went except Poland. Ever since they have managed to usurp the history of the real jews and continued to play on European guilt.

And stating that doesn't make me a Holocaust denier.

Runningdownthatdream -I can't agree with you -not just because the 'Khazar herese' is at best unproven, at worst a fantasy, but because modern political Zionism was born out of competing agendas for European Jews. Theodor Herzl's anxiety was driven by physical attacks on the Jews in Russia and also Poland, and Ukraine and the Baltic states on the one hand; and the gradual assimilation of Jews in Germany, France, Britain and the Low Countries, Jews who seemed happy to dilute their 'identity' to take advantage of new opportunities in growing economies. Herzl's vision was a nationalist one, and this in tune with the Nationalist agendas that had been sweeping Europe in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars. Everyone wanted their own nation, so why not the Jews? The politics in this is evident in the various alternatives to Palestine that Herzl considered, such as Uganda and Argentina -so much for Eretz Israel and biblical authenticity!! But this is also why so many Jews were offended by Herzl and why there are Jews -non-religious- who object to a Jewish state -because it suggests that it was a Jew, Herzl, who wanted to separate out the Jews from other people in their own state -and ultimately, Europe has lost the greater part of its Jewish population, for obvious reasons. But it was politics, and Nationalism that drove this -nationalism may appear to have been anti-Imperialist in the 19thc, a force for Wilson's promotion of 'Self-determination among nations', but it has become a poisonous wreck of an ideology since then, and Israel is not the only state paying the price for this folly.

The real issue that is growing in importance is the division of the spoils in the Eastern Mediterranean where modest, but still lucrative gas fields, possibly some oil, lie off the coast in an arc stretching from offshore Alexandria north along the coast of Gaza and Israel into Lebanon. Noting biblical about that! But who is going to own it? And produce it, and...spend it...

[Dino Velvet]

i thought most of the countries in that region want to drive the jews into the sea as goal .if someone told me that i would not want to be negotiating with them lol

If someone broke into my house or stole my land I have every right to do as I choose to them.

[MrsKellyPierce]

Facts

[onmyknees]

Stavros, No Anne Frank was not on a vacation to poland and the nazis did send a lot of people to consentration camp. Including other nazis who was so unlucky as to loose the internal powerstruggle.

But remember that Pellestinians dont just blow them selves up for the fun of it. They do because sombody stole their land and deny them a future. Those who stole their land happen to be a wacho religious cult who think that their god gave the land to them. Nazis or no nazis.

The worst thing is that the jews (or Israelis if you like) abuse those 6 million dead of WWII so that nobody will dare question their own geneside on the palestinian people.

That I find distasfull.

Baby...you got a jaded view of reality and history. You conveniently omit the part about the 3 wars the Arabs waged on Israel, and lost all 3. Israelis spilled blood in the deserting defeating the Arabs....why the fuck should they give it back? Did we give back Texas? lol You also have a selective sense of history. Google the Oslo accords when Arafat had it all....and walked away from the negoiations. Why? My guess is once a terrorist always a terrorist, and his political power could only be maintained through constant upheaval, and fueled by a hatred for Israel. He cared more about his personal power and ambitions than bargaining for a lasting peace. Peace would have meant a loss of his political power. If you're gonna tell a story baby....tell the whole story. You give credence to the notion that Europe is full of anti Semites.

[MdR Dave]

Israel as we know it was created at the end of WWII in a bid to stabilize the middle east.

Let's talk realpolitik.

[Heather Moorland]

Theodor Herzl was not the first who wanted to separate out the Jews from other people. It is very much a part of the jewish religion to be seperate from any other. That attitude has been discribed as far back as there is accounts of the jewish religion. Roman, Greek, Egyptian records all describe the jews as wanting to keep them selves distinct from other people.
Try to read Jan Assmann; "Moses the Egyptian" and "Monotheism and the language of violence"

The jewish god and the Holocaust has a lot to do wuith the creation of Israel. With out the claims of the bible and it would not have been created in exactly that place. The holocaust very much acted as an excuse and the jews was soon to exploit "the bad concience" of the europeans.

Israel may be a political fact but so was the cruxiaderes in the medieval times and they eventually had to go.

[russtafa]

If someone broke into my house or stole my land I have every right to do as I choose to them.that means stalemate

[Heather Moorland]

Baby...you got a jaded view of reality and history. ...

Look here honny I dont write about rigth and wrong here, good or evil. I let the jews, muslims and christians do that. The belief in "good" and "evil" is the ultimate supersticion.
What I am talking about is the law of nature that we know of as "Action equals reaction." It is a law that is not only aplicable to rockets. It also guides peoples behaveour towarts oneanother. We can allso call it action and consequence. It works like this; When I step in your sand castle you become sad, start to cry. Then you get mad and try the best you can to step in my sandcastle. Then I get mad and step back into yours.
That is the way the world are and I am not talking ethics or how it should be.

Now you can claim that you dont want to give back Texas to Mexico (I soppose you didnt mean the indians) But that is only important aslong as your neuclear mesiles is in working order. The day the Mexican army is strong enough to take it back (possibly with the help of the chineese) it doesn't matter what you think.

[talon]

Baby...you got a jaded view of reality and history. You conveniently omit the part about the 3 wars the Arabs waged on Israel, and lost all 3. Israelis spilled blood in the deserting defeating the Arabs....why the fuck should they give it back? Did we give back Texas? lol You also have a selective sense of history. Google the Oslo accords when Arafat had it all....and walked away from the negoiations. Why? My guess is once a terrorist always a terrorist, and his political power could only be maintained through constant upheaval, and fueled by a hatred for Israel. He cared more about his personal power and ambitions than bargaining for a lasting peace. Peace would have meant a loss of his political power. If you're gonna tell a story baby....tell the whole story. You give credence to the notion that Europe is full of anti Semites.

Israel is not your ally, not your friend. Take that FOX News dick out of your mouth and read a book or something. Learn about your culture, your history, not some warmed over propaganda designed to support destroying your own country for murderous and stupid and immoral foreign wars fought on behalf of a paranoid undeclared nuclear power that has spent decades spying on and corrupting what is left of the legitimate US government.

[trish]

I thought Jehovah, Jesus' Dad and Allah got together 1947 and flipped a coin for Palestine and Jehovah won the toss.

BTW the newest GOP plan is to line the southern border with trampoline ball rebounders. Those Mexican mesiles (missiles?) are going right back to start.

[robertlouis]

The holocaust very much acted as an excuse and the jews was soon to exploit "the bad concience" of the europeans.



So you are dismissing the genocidal, organised murder of 6,000,000 people as an "excuse"? That's obscene.

[ohioguy13]

what a joke read these posts after a month no one still has any clue why the person next to them are protesting or what they are about. I think its a bunch of people who could have used a good 4h program when they were growing up. Im not right or left or even political but ive never seen a more goofy protest about nothing in my life. Well see how serious they are when the first snows come and they camp out in 20 degree weather then we'll know if your serious. Until then its just like a big line waiting for concert tickets to go on sale.

[trish]

I think 99% sums it up rather nicely. What don't you understand about that?? They don't want a flat tax. They don't want corporate rule. They don't want their country to be ruled by those who are so rich their political influence cannot be denied. They do want a free market with reasonable regulative protections. They do want their fair share of the commons.

[Stavros]

You conveniently omit the part about the 3 wars the Arabs waged on Israel, and lost all 3. Israelis spilled blood in the deserting defeating the Arabs....why the fuck should they give it back? Did we give back Texas? lol You also have a selective sense of history. Google the Oslo accords when Arafat had it all....and walked away from the negoiations

Get your facts right, onmyknees: 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973: that makes four wars, not three (cf Sydney Bailey, Four Arab-Israeli Wars and the Peace Process, 1990). Of those wars, most of the fighting was done in urban areas, not the 'deserting'. The notion of to the victor goes the spoils is a curious one, and a political dead end, almost literally.

When Hussein ibn Ali, the Hashemite ruler of Mecca and Medina in 1918 complained that the British had reneged on the 1915 agreement to grant the Arabs independence in the Arab lands of the Ottoman Empire, Churchill exploded in a rage: HE DIDN'T THE WAR WE DID! and conveniently ignored that sideshow known as The Arab Revolt. When the King-Crane Commission from the USA visited Syria in 1919 the Arabs told them they wanted to determine their own future, instead they got the French, who marched in at the point of a gun, BUT: winning the war doesn't mean winning the peace: the French Mandate fought one insurrection after another; Iraq exploded in 1919; Palestine became a nightmare for the British.

And Israel: Maxim Ghilan (in How Israel Lost its Soul, 1974) was one of the first Jews to argue that by taking over the West Bank and Gaza and with it nearly a million hostile Arabs Israel was creating a relationship of violence that was a mockery of the essentially humanitarian principles he believed had informed zionism in its early years, and particularly the Labour Zionism that saw Israel as one giant Kibbutz.

The programme of enforced settlement that followed 1967 offered nothing to the Arabs who lived on either the West Bank or Gaza, in fact all investment in those areas has been motivated by 'facts on the ground' as long as they were not Arab, ie settlements at beneficial rates to mostly foreign and proportionately a lot of Americans, reminiscent of Chaim Weizmann's claim earlier on in the 20th century: if they give us land the size of a tablecloth, we will take it, and build on it.

Politics, when it succeeds, is about compromise this goes for Republicand Democrats, Occupy Wall Street and Capitalism; and which in Israel/Palestine must mean Land and Immigration, the two cardinal issues that shaped the modern state. Arafat was indeed a selfish man, and a disaster for the Palestinians, but even Mr Palestine could not sign away what few rights the Arabs had left, and both the Israelis and Bill Clinton knew this. Had Israel just won those wars -three of which it started- and everyone else just gone away, you might be right, but wars have legacies, and the four wars have not dealt with a fundamental issue: nationalism, and its poisonous destruction of human rights. It is not about anti-Semitism, or God and the Bible; it is not about David and Solomon, or Jesus, Mary, Joseph and the Donkey, it is about politics, and the politics that doesn't work.

[onmyknees]

I think 99% sums it up rather nicely. What don't you understand about that?? They don't want a flat tax. They don't want corporate rule. They don't want their country to be ruled by those who are so rich their political influence cannot be denied. They do want a free market with reasonable regulative protections. They do want their fair share of the commons.

See that's the problem...."FAIR" ! Who promises life is going to be fair? Please tell me what entity does that. What you and these folks want is equal outcomes...not equal opportunities....thus your use of the word "fair". That's precisely what Greece attempted to do. Level the playing field for those who just couldn't make it for whatever their tale of whoa was. Greece may turn into Libya before it's over. For the vast majority of us, you make your own breaks and carve our life out of the pie, and have no beef with the government looking after those that can't do that for themselves. I never really looked at friends who were trust fund babies with envy or felt that some of what they have should be given to me out of some arbitration of fairness, but apparently most of these protestors do. That greatest generation thing....that's in the rear view mirror. I've heard you tell of your grandfather in the CCC back in the 30's. Did he spend his day whining about some rich guys and how he wanted his share of their spoils? I doubt it. He worked his ass off and provided as best he could for his family is my guess, just as my grandfather dug the NYC sewers with a shovel. Ours has become a nation of slackers, whiners ,wanters, I phone toting, envy ridden fools. I admire their ambition to protest, but they're not foolin' me for a second. The vast majority of these folks want something much closer to Greece (including the anarchy) than they do a free market democracy. Small wonder why every guy with a landscaping truck and lawn mower has brown skin, cause he's the only one who's going to do that job.

[Ben]

American author and journalist Chris Hedges:

Chris Hedges on Chomsky, Dostoevsky and democracy at Occupy Wall Street -- 10/9/11 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QXIeVvskq4)

[trish]

The entity that promises fair treatment is government of, by and for the people. A principle function of government is to provide justice, just laws, just regulation and just application of the law. Justice in paraphrase is fairness.

[Heather Moorland]

I thought Jehovah, Jesus' Dad and Allah got together 1947 and flipped a coin for Palestine ...

You mean God and Yahoova fliped coins? I always expectet him to have a serious personality disorder but that he is also scitzofrenic thats interesting.

[Heather Moorland]

So you are dismissing the genocidal, organised murder of 6,000,000 people as an "excuse"? That's obscene.
No I don't dismiss or deni the nazi camps. What I find obscene is that the Zionists have abused the death of 6,000,000 people in their propaganda to legitimise their own crimes against humanity.

[BigDF]

The entity that promises fair treatment is government of, by and for the people. A principle function of government is to provide justice, just laws, just regulation and just application of the law. Justice in paraphrase is fairness.This I believe was the founders' intent, but before the ink was dry (maybe even before it was applied) people with money were trying to buy favors and use money to influence things. It is that problem which is motivating much of the protesting going on right now. The wealth concentrated in Wall Street is being used to prevent stronger regulation of our financial sector so that the nitwits might stop their gambling with this country's economy. And at this point it doesn't matter which party is in power, since Wall Street can afford to pay great sums to both.:geek:

[trish]

I think we agree, BigDF. I see no peaceful fix other than grassroots pressure to reinstate regulations on banks and corporations, reinstate the inheritance tax and elect judges and/or officials who will appoint judges who will reverse in effect the supreme court decision to treat corporations as people in relation to campaign financing.

[jerseyboy72]

reinstate the inheritance tax

Why? That money was taxed already.Why tax it again? That would hurt alot of hard working families that want to give something to there kids when they die.

[Faldur]

Good point Jersey, but trish very well knows the death tax has already been reinstated as of Jan 1 of this year.

[Faldur]

And what 99%, man I laugh every time I hear one of the stinky hippies use that term. At BEST, they are .0002%. They are the fringe few, and the rest of us are loving all the entertainment we get from them. Toe sniffers anyone? How about some urine labeled as "energy drink".. lol.. oh maybe a mentally handicapped rapist for you?

[Ben]

See that's the problem...."FAIR" ! Who promises life is going to be fair? Please tell me what entity does that. What you and these folks want is equal outcomes...not equal opportunities....thus your use of the word "fair". That's precisely what Greece attempted to do. Level the playing field for those who just couldn't make it for whatever their tale of whoa was. Greece may turn into Libya before it's over. For the vast majority of us, you make your own breaks and carve our life out of the pie, and have no beef with the government looking after those that can't do that for themselves. I never really looked at friends who were trust fund babies with envy or felt that some of what they have should be given to me out of some arbitration of fairness, but apparently most of these protestors do. That greatest generation thing....that's in the rear view mirror. I've heard you tell of your grandfather in the CCC back in the 30's. Did he spend his day whining about some rich guys and how he wanted his share of their spoils? I doubt it. He worked his ass off and provided as best he could for his family is my guess, just as my grandfather dug the NYC sewers with a shovel. Ours has become a nation of slackers, whiners ,wanters, I phone toting, envy ridden fools. I admire their ambition to protest, but they're not foolin' me for a second. The vast majority of these folks want something much closer to Greece (including the anarchy) than they do a free market democracy. Small wonder why every guy with a landscaping truck and lawn mower has brown skin, cause he's the only one who's going to do that job.

Just a question: what does bailing out, say, the banks have to do with capitalism?
And we don't live in a so-called free market. A free market means: no state intervention. None. I mean, we could've tried it right from the get-go, at the founding of our nation.
It would've been interesting to see NO government intervention in the economy. America would be a radically different place. No government. No President. No Congress. No government spending. No government protection for the rich.... Yep! It would've been a radically different place the ol' U.S. of A.
And capitalism is: investing money to make money by those who have money. Which is the antithesis of democracy.
And I'm talking about meaningful democracy. An actual democratic country would be quite different.
A democracy would actually have (as most Americans want this, if you look at public opinion polls): higher taxes on the rich and corporations, universal health care provided by the government. Most Americans want to be in a Union.
Most Americans recognize that there's too much power concentrated in the hands of a few big businesses. Most Americans think corporations make too much profit. Most Americans agree that differences in incomes are too large.
One gets an entirely different view of America when one actually looks at public polling, public opinion polls. It's quite different from what we're being fed by the mainstream press.
Most Americans are not way to the right. And they aren't way to the left. They're compassionate, sensible and moral... :)

[trish]

All money has been taxed over and over again. The twenty in my purse has exchanged hands over and over again and each time there was likely a tax. Cain's sales tax will tax the same dollar over and over again every time it's used to buy something. Complaining that money was already taxed is not an argument. To be accurate, money isn't ever taxed. Transactions and transfers are taxed. Moreover the inheritance tax never affected anything as small as small businesses, small farms, family homes etc. I doubt if there are many people on these boards who ever have to worry about it.

[trish]

The people occupying wall street represent the 99% of Americans who have had half their wealth stolen, in some cases their very homes stolen, by huge commercial banks and their political power stolen by lobbyists for giant corporations. Faldur, you just belong to the .0002% to stupid to know when they're being taken and by whom. Stop believing everything you see on Fox Snooze.

[Faldur]

The people occupying wall street represent the 99% of Americans

So explain to me how 50,000 divided up between 50 states, and darling I am being generous in that figure. How 50,000 represent 300,340,050? How does that happen? Did they get proxy by notary?

So when the Tea Party meets with similar numbers, they represent the 99% also. Or is it just you who determines that? Frankly Trish, the nation is laughing at these fools. Gotta admit its good entertainment.

[BellaBellucci]

Believe it or not, I'm actually pro-estate tax myself. It's aimed at the rich, and more importantly, the deceased rich. They're dead. What do they need all that money for?! I'm also for the cap gains tax. Tax the rich, feed the poor. Dead people and money should not be able to make even more money so easily at the expense of the living and destitute.

For the middle class and lower though, and for the working rich, I think tax rates should be absolutely minimal. If you work for your money, you shouldn't pay taxes, but if your money produces more money, or you're in the ground, you should. It's about effort, not net worth or posthumous working capital. :geek:

~BB~

[Silcc69]

So explain to me how 50,000 divided up between 50 states, and darling I am being generous in that figure. How 50,000 represent 300,340,050? How does that happen? Did they get proxy by notary?

So when the Tea Party meets with similar numbers, they represent the 99% also. Or is it just you who determines that? Frankly Trish, the nation is laughing at these fools. Gotta admit its good entertainment.

I'm sure republicans and tea party members LOL at them. Everybody else probably not.

[BellaBellucci]

I'm sure republicans and tea party members LOL at them. Everybody else probably not.

Don't forget Obama though. He thinks all opposition to him is a joke, which, by the way, is the traditional reaction to dissidence from a dictator. :geek:

~BB~

[Faldur]

I'm sure republicans and tea party members LOL at them. Everybody else probably not.

Well only 37% showed any sign of support in the polls, (funny thats about the same number as Obbummer gets), good news republicans and Tea Party members make up 63% of the population!

[Silcc69]

Well only 37% showed any sign of support in the polls, (funny thats about the same number as Obbummer gets), good news republicans and Tea Party members make up 63% of the population!

Both parties have terrible poll numbers, people are clearly pissed off about both parties but will simply vote the status quo anyways.

[russtafa]

The police removed protesters in Sydney,so all the protesters will go back to university

[jerseyboy72]

Too all people who say to tax the rich more, how much money is rich in ur eyes? What someone who makes in a year.

[fred41]

The people occupying wall street represent the 99% of Americans who have had half their wealth stolen, in some cases their very homes stolen, by huge commercial banks and their political power stolen by lobbyists for giant corporations.

I assume you don't mean literally....

[fred41]

Don't forget Obama though. He thinks all opposition to him is a joke, which, by the way, is the traditional reaction to dissidence from a dictator. :geek:

~BB~

If that is what he thinks...he may be right. have you seen who the Republicans are running ? (and yes,..I usually vote conservative). he's had a great 2011 in the Mid East (got Bin Laden...helped get rid of Khadafy with no American casualties, etc.....gotta give him his props there)...I think he sucks on the economy but the opposing slate doesn't sound much better. (Gingrich seems to have the highest I.Q. , but he has the personality of a serial killer...and regardless how many Libertarians love Ron Paul - there is no way that he is fit to run a country).


...forgot to mention...no way in holy hell I'm voting for a Mormon.

[fred41]

Both parties have terrible poll numbers, people are clearly pissed off about both parties but will simply vote the status quo anyways.

I agree...but the parties will then need to sway the Independents...and try to keep their constituents from staying home on Election Day (usually by trying last minute scare tactics)

[Merkurie]

If that is what he thinks...he may be right. have you seen who the Republicans are running ? (and yes,..I usually vote conservative). he's had a great 2011 in the Mid East (got Bin Laden...helped get rid of Khadafy with no American casualties, etc.....gotta give him his props there)...I think he sucks on the economy but the opposing slate doesn't sound much better. (Gingrich seems to have the highest I.Q. , but he has the personality of a serial killer...and regardless how many Libertarians love Ron Paul - there is no way that he is fit to run a country).


...forgot to mention...no way in holy hell I'm voting for a Mormon.

The best political post of the year.

[BluegrassCat]

Well only 37% showed any sign of support in the polls, (funny thats about the same number as Obbummer gets), good news republicans and Tea Party members make up 63% of the population!


Let's try to keep the polling discussions fact-based for a change. According to a Time Magazine poll a majority of people (54%) support the OWS movement,' twice the number of Americans who support the extremist Tea Party (27%). And it looks like people are finally catching on as now more people oppose the Tea Party than support it.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/time-poll-occupy-wall-street-is-more-popular-than-the-tea-party/

[MdR Dave]

Let's try to keep the polling discussions fact-based for a change. According to a Time Magazine poll a majority of people (54%) support the OWS movement,' twice the number of Americans who support the extremist Tea Party (27%). And it looks like people are finally catching on as now more people oppose the Tea Party than support it.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/time-poll-occupy-wall-street-is-more-popular-than-the-tea-party/


Nice try, BC- good luck getting fact to merge with the interwebz!

And hey- can we start calling them "teabaggers"? Seems like a more accurate description. It's the Koch brothers' balls being dipped, you know. . . .I bet 90% of the teabaggers don't even know who those guys are.

[BigDF]

So explain to me how 50,000 divided up between 50 states, and darling I am being generous in that figure. How 50,000 represent 300,340,050? How does that happen? Did they get proxy by notary?

So when the Tea Party meets with similar numbers, they represent the 99% also. Or is it just you who determines that? Frankly Trish, the nation is laughing at these fools. Gotta admit its good entertainment.The only people laughing about this are people who are ignorant of our own history. The fact that you keep calling them hippies reveals your own ignorance of fairly recent history. This grassroots movement is spreading across the country and it will continue to grow as they get further organized. :geek:

[JerseyMike]

"This grassroots movement is spreading across the country and it will continue to grow as they get further organized."
So labor unions and people that work for MSNBC is grassroots now? Also most people are busy working and living a life to sit down on their ass for a month doing nothing but holding signs and yelling.

[jerseyboy72]

"This grassroots movement is spreading across the country and it will continue to grow as they get further organized."
So labor unions and people that work for MSNBC is grassroots now? Also most people are busy working and living a life to sit down on their ass for a month doing nothing but holding signs and yelling.

Agreed.

[robertlouis]

The only people laughing about this are people who are ignorant of our own history. The fact that you keep calling them hippies reveals your own ignorance of fairly recent history. This grassroots movement is spreading across the country and it will continue to grow as they get further organized. :geek:

The subtext to this is that those who snipe from the sidelines tacitly agree that the banks and financial institutions should remain entirely untouched for their primary culpability in the global economic calamity which is threatening to engulf us all for a second time.

If you truly believe that, you're more foolish than I previously thought.

Those who fetishise capitalism fail to recognise that it's the failure to control and regulate its wilder excesses in the last twenty years that has brought the world economy to its knees. Government shares in that culpability of course, but if you leave organisations whose sole driver is the profit motive and have no moral understanding whatsoever to their own devices, they will screw everyone regardless. That's what happened.

Government at both a national and international level has shown a collective failure of will and courage to take on the banks. "Too big to fail" remains the mantra in Washington, London and elsewhere. Germany is so far the only country to have shown any will, but they cannot act in isolation or the vultures in the US, London and the far east will simply descend and destroy their economy too. The absence of action means that the banks' behaviour hasn't shifted an inch, obscene bonuses and profits continue to be the order of the day, and meantime, the taxpayers who saved them take all the punishment. That's where the frustration of the 99% comes from - if government won't confront the obvious, what else can people do?

Step back for a moment from the (alleged) origins and motivations of the protesters and ask yourself if their cause is really not worth fighting for.

If you disagree, please don't complain when the banks fuck you over again next time. Because they will, you can be absolutely sure of that.

One small point, BigDF - the movement isn't just spreading across your country, it's now a global phenomenon. It's also serving the useful purpose of raising awareness of the ultimate responsibility for the mess.

[trish]

So labor unions and people that work for MSNBC is grassroots now?Just kills you though that those workers (many of which are indeed union members and many of which aren't) are cheering the occupiers on. 1% of Americans have taken possession of 90% of America's wealth. Corporations are making record profits, but can't seem to get motivated to create a single job. Meanwhile half of the goods responsible for their profits are being produced by American workers with their bare hands working at the highest level of productivity in our history__the other half of the goods are being produced overseas by underpaid women and children who are lucky to make dollars a day.

Just because you belong to the top 1% of the wealthy doesn't mean you're a "job creator". Is Paris Hilton a job creator? Does she deserve a tax break for her contributions to our economy? Demand for products is down. Demand for luxury goods is up. Charity giving is down. Donations for opera up. You tell me what's going on here.

While the large corporations are shoveling in the profits, they use public roads, public bridges, communications systems launched with public money, they depend on municipal and state police to keep their products safe from theft. They use the court system to enforce the contracts they make with each other. Without the 99% the 1% are useless. Is the 99% useless without the 1%. I think not.

The odds of you joining the 1% are miniscule. It doesn't just depend on hard work and determination. The most important factors are contingencies over which you have no control. But you can, through elections, take over the government. You can elect officials who promise to regulate the large corporate interests and the big commercial banks. You can elect officials who will appoint judges that understand that the current campaign financing laws are unjust. Corporations are not people. Shouting down your political opponent with money is not freedom of speech. Shouting is anathema to rational discussion.

[robertlouis]

Just kills you though that those workers (many of which are indeed union members and many of which aren't) are cheering the occupiers on. 1% of Americans have taken possession of 90% of America's wealth. Corporations are making record profits, but can't seem to get motivated to create a single job. Meanwhile half of the goods responsible for their profits are being produced by American workers with their bare hands working at the highest level of productivity in our history__the other half of the goods are being produced overseas by underpaid women and children who are lucky to make dollars a day.

Just because you belong to the top 1% of the wealthy doesn't mean you're a "job creator". Is Paris Hilton a job creator? Does she deserve a tax break for her contributions to our economy? Demand for products is down. Demand for luxury goods is up. Charity giving is down. Donations for opera up. You tell me what's going on here.

While the large corporations are shoveling in the profits, they use public roads, public bridges, communications systems launched with public money, they depend on municipal and state police to keep their products safe from theft. They use the court system to enforce the contracts they make with each other. Without the 99% the 1% are useless. Is the 99% useless without the 1%. I think not.

The odds of you joining the 1% are miniscule. It doesn't just depend on hard work and determination. The most important factors are contingencies over which you have no control. But you can, through elections, take over the government. You can elect officials who promise to regulate the large corporate interests and the big commercial banks. You can elect officials who will appoint judges that understand that the current campaign financing laws are unjust. Corporations are not people. Shouting down your political opponent with money is not freedom of speech. Shouting is anathema to rational discussion.

:iagree::iagree::iagree: with every single word. Well said, Trish.

[BigDF]

"This grassroots movement is spreading across the country and it will continue to grow as they get further organized."
So labor unions and people that work for MSNBC is grassroots now? Also most people are busy working and living a life to sit down on their ass for a month doing nothing but holding signs and yelling.There are some 14 million people out of work in this country according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I would imagine a good percentage of those people are cheering on the OWS movement and will voice their objections at the ballot box.:geek:

RobertLouis, you are correct as usual. I did forget to observe that this is becoming global. Thanks for reminding us that everyone is in the same boat.:)

[russtafa]

i suggest that this campaign does have a bad image if the media film a lot of feral's with dreadlocks and others with green Mohicans and wearing rags the vast majority of people reject these bludger's even though there are valid concerns over this issue

[trish]

Sorry to disappoint but the only domestics gone wild (definition of feral) on wall street are the carnivorous commercial bankers and brokers. My-oh-my how make their mothers cry!

[runningdownthatdream]

Just kills you though that those workers (many of which are indeed union members and many of which aren't) are cheering the occupiers on. 1% of Americans have taken possession of 90% of America's wealth. Corporations are making record profits, but can't seem to get motivated to create a single job. Meanwhile half of the goods responsible for their profits are being produced by American workers with their bare hands working at the highest level of productivity in our history__the other half of the goods are being produced overseas by underpaid women and children who are lucky to make dollars a day.

Just because you belong to the top 1% of the wealthy doesn't mean you're a "job creator". Is Paris Hilton a job creator? Does she deserve a tax break for her contributions to our economy? Demand for products is down. Demand for luxury goods is up. Charity giving is down. Donations for opera up. You tell me what's going on here.

While the large corporations are shoveling in the profits, they use public roads, public bridges, communications systems launched with public money, they depend on municipal and state police to keep their products safe from theft. They use the court system to enforce the contracts they make with each other. Without the 99% the 1% are useless. Is the 99% useless without the 1%. I think not.

The odds of you joining the 1% are miniscule. It doesn't just depend on hard work and determination. The most important factors are contingencies over which you have no control. But you can, through elections, take over the government. You can elect officials who promise to regulate the large corporate interests and the big commercial banks. You can elect officials who will appoint judges that understand that the current campaign financing laws are unjust. Corporations are not people. Shouting down your political opponent with money is not freedom of speech. Shouting is anathema to rational discussion.

As usual Trish, you give rational voice to the cause...........

[runningdownthatdream]

The only people laughing about this are people who are ignorant of our own history. The fact that you keep calling them hippies reveals your own ignorance of fairly recent history. This grassroots movement is spreading across the country and it will continue to grow as they get further organized. :geek:

Indeed sad that a people who founded a progessive country have forgotten their roots and allowed the same type of mentality against which they rebelled to infect the society.

Worse that those who would keep the current status quo of the richer getting richer and the poor getting poorer are likely never going to even get anywhere near the top of the 1%.

[BellaBellucci]

Worse that those who would keep the current status quo of the richer getting richer and the poor getting poorer are likely never going to even get anywhere near the top of the 1%.

QFT. We should always strive to do better than the status quo.

~BB~

[runningdownthatdream]

I posted the link below in another thread - the results of study showing how much of the world's is controlled by a select few corporations. I think it helps prove how little power is actually invested in the general population. We may 'vote' politicians into power but who controls the wealth of a country? Given the goal of every corporation is financial growth, who ensures that the means it employs to become richer doesn't harm the greater population?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...the-world.html (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html)

[BellaBellucci]

I posted the link below in another thread - the results of study showing how much of the world's is controlled by a select few corporations. I think it helps prove how little power is actually invested in the general population. We may 'vote' politicians into power but who controls the wealth of a country? Given the goal of every corporation is financial growth, who ensures that the means it employs to become richer doesn't harm the greater population?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...the-world.html (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html)

These same dynamics control many industries as well, particularly the entertainment business, and most definitely including the adult entertainment business. :geek:

~BB~

[Bobby Domino]

you know, a strike here in the US is considered a dirty word.

One way to understand who is part of the OWS movement is to organize 7-day strikes consecutively, not concurrently, in major economic sectors: transportation (commercial & mass transit), manufacture, information technology, service sector (doormen, security guards, waiters, janitors, etc), small businesses (dry cleaners, shop owners, mechanics, etc), and so forth....

This is obviously unrealistic - everyone would get fired - but you would get a much clearer idea of who this is affecting

[runningdownthatdream]

QFT. We should always strive to do better than the status quo.

~BB~

What is QFT?

We should strive to do better than the status quo but also be open to the forms that 'better' take.

[BellaBellucci]

What is QFT?

We should strive to do better than the status quo but also be open to the forms that 'better' take.

QFT= quoted for truth.

~BB~

[onmyknees]

:iagree::iagree::iagree: with every single word. Well said, Trish.

That's Elizabeth Warren's shtick, but how would she know...she's never spent a day outside of a think tank or university classroom in her life ! It sounds real good Trish, that collectivism routine, but upon further inspection, it's falls flat. First off...unless you're Jeff Immelt and GE, corporations pay corporate federal tax, local city and real estate tax as well... based on the assessment of the value of their buildings and property. The trucks they use to ship their goods pay the federal fuel tax on each gallon of fuel, as well as a hefty fuel permit every year. All that is earmarked for highway improvement. If it's not getting there...that's hardly the corporations fault. Ever seen the tax bill for a company with a large facility or office complex in a nice suburb ? It's staggering. Additionally they're paying half of each employees FICA tax, and probably a good chuck of the health care costs of their employees. The notion that corporations don't pay their share, or are not contributing makes for good speeches, and will get you some cred down in The Park, , but it's baseless and foolish. True some of them have moved offshore, but they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to keep costs and profits inline. That's something that Obama could do tomorrow, ( help repatriate corporate profits ), but he won't. Additionally corporations I deal with contribute millions to charities, many of whom could not exist without large corporate donations. These folks wringing their hands about corporate profits make me laugh. Instead of complaining, join in on the windfall. Instead of buying I phones and I pads why not buy some share of stocks in these companies ? Most of them are publicly traded and would be more than happy to sell you a part of their company. That's how it's done Trish. That's capitalism.

[russtafa]

That's Elizabeth Warren's shtick, but how would she know...she's never spent a day outside of a think tank or university classroom in her life ! It sounds real good Trish, that collectivism routine, but upon further inspection, it's falls flat. First off...unless you're Jeff Immelt and GE, corporations pay corporate federal tax, local city and real estate tax as well... based on the assessment of the value of their buildings and property. The trucks they use to ship their goods pay the federal fuel tax on each gallon of fuel, as well as a hefty fuel permit every year. All that is earmarked for highway improvement. If it's not getting there...that's hardly the corporations fault. Ever seen the tax bill for a company with a large facility or office complex in a nice suburb ? It's staggering. Additionally they're paying half of each employees FICA tax, and probably a good chuck of the health care costs of their employees. The notion that corporations don't pay their share, or are not contributing makes for good speeches, and will get you some cred down in The Park, , but it's baseless and foolish. True some of them have moved offshore, but they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to keep costs and profits inline. That's something that Obama could do tomorrow, ( help repatriate corporate profits ), but he won't. Additionally corporations I deal with contribute millions to charities, many of whom could not exist without large corporate donations. These folks wringing their hands about corporate profits make me laugh. Instead of complaining, join in on the windfall. Instead of buying I phones and I pads why not buy some share of stocks in these companies ? Most of them are publicly traded and would be more than happy to sell you a part of their company. That's how it's done Trish. That's capitalism.are these people the yes brigade because that's all they do is agree with each other?

[trish]

Ever see GE tax bill. It's staggeringly small.

[Bobby Domino]

Just kills you though that those workers (many of which are indeed union members and many of which aren't) are cheering the occupiers on. 1% of Americans have taken possession of 90% of America's wealth. Corporations are making record profits, but can't seem to get motivated to create a single job. Meanwhile half of the goods responsible for their profits are being produced by American workers with their bare hands working at the highest level of productivity in our history__the other half of the goods are being produced overseas by underpaid women and children who are lucky to make dollars a day.

Just because you belong to the top 1% of the wealthy doesn't mean you're a "job creator". Is Paris Hilton a job creator? Does she deserve a tax break for her contributions to our economy? Demand for products is down. Demand for luxury goods is up. Charity giving is down. Donations for opera up. You tell me what's going on here.

While the large corporations are shoveling in the profits, they use public roads, public bridges, communications systems launched with public money, they depend on municipal and state police to keep their products safe from theft. They use the court system to enforce the contracts they make with each other. Without the 99% the 1% are useless. Is the 99% useless without the 1%. I think not.

The odds of you joining the 1% are miniscule. It doesn't just depend on hard work and determination. The most important factors are contingencies over which you have no control. But you can, through elections, take over the government. You can elect officials who promise to regulate the large corporate interests and the big commercial banks. You can elect officials who will appoint judges that understand that the current campaign financing laws are unjust. Corporations are not people. Shouting down your political opponent with money is not freedom of speech. Shouting is anathema to rational discussion.

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

[onmyknees]

Ever see GE tax bill. It's staggeringly small.


Absolutely....good lobbyists, good tax attorneys, and a real good friend on Pennsylvania Ave. In fact...isn't the former GE CEO Obama's jobs czar? LMAO...With friends like that...who needs Chinese child labor? Wonder how come the OWS crowd doesn't have an opinion on that one?

[trish]

And so your point is destroyed. Large corporations have been paying piddling taxes ever since the Bush tax cuts and large corporations are now making record profits. They've restructured and are making do with a more productive, smaller workforce. They have no inclination to "create" more jobs.

[russtafa]

And so your point is destroyed. Large corporations have been paying piddling taxes ever since the Bush tax cuts. Has nothing to do with Obama. And large corporations are making record profits. They've restructured and are making do with a more productive, smaller workforce. They have no inclination to "create" more jobs.something is wrong with our system but having these dirty things protesting outside our financial institutions is definitely not the way

[onmyknees]

And so your point is destroyed. Large corporations have been paying piddling taxes ever since the Bush tax cuts. Has nothing to do with Obama. And large corporations are making record profits. They've restructured and are making do with a more productive, smaller workforce. They have no inclination to "create" more jobs.



Poor comeback Trish......GE paid no corporate income tax, but the vast majority of all US corporations did. Aren't you the one who always lectures us not to judge the actions of the many by the misdeeds of a few?
And part of the point of the post was to show how Obama sees the world. Who does he appoint as his jobs Czar? A guy who's company paid no corporate income tax, shipped thousands of jobs, and all the profits off shore, and secured millions in federal loans and contracts while doing so. Nice work if ya can get it. Immelt as the person spearheading the effort to create jobs for the administration is like hiring Pretty Boy Floyd to guard the felons !
And so the question remains....why has Obama been unscarred by the Protest Wall Street Crowd? He's taken more in campaign contributions from them than anyone in history, and all of his financial team are former Wall Street fraternity brothers. Interesting.

And companies are indeed sitting on record amounts of cash, but it's not the reason you lament. It's uncertainty. Obama has bashed and demonized the job creators for 3 years, while piling up health care costs, EPA regulations, executive orders, and calls for increased taxes on them....and now he implores them to start hiring? You reap what you sow Barry.

[trish]

Pathetic retort OMK. Giant corporations are making record profits each and every year and they're suffering uncertainty? Bullshit. They've restructured and have no intention of creating new jobs. Austerity measures will kill more jobs and decrease demand and along with it any corporate motivation to create new jobs.
You forgot that we launch their communications satellites, we provide at great expense the legal system and courts that make enterprise possible. We provide the security from fire and theft. We provide, in spite of their efforts, safe water for their coolers as well as their industrial applications. Enterprise doesn't happen in a vacuum. It requires a transportation infrastructure, a communications infrastructure, a legal infrastructure, a security infrastructure etc. all of which the 99% help pay for and the 1% use disproportionately to reap historically record profits.

In my State the roads are paid for by ordinary tax payers at the pumps. We educate the people who work for the corporations, laborers and executives. Giant farms get State subsidies. In my rural town the taxpayers pay for an airport that only the wealthy use. And to draw big corporations to our state and keep them in our State and Cities we give their factories and their outlets all sorts of tax breaks, tax incentives and free tax zones (all in addition to the Bush tax cuts). No fucking wonder they're making out like bandits. 1% of people have taken possession of 90% of our wealth__and they're uncertain?! Bullshit.

[onmyknees]

Pathetic retort OMK. Giant corporations are making record profits each and every year and they're suffering uncertainty? Bullshit. They've restructured and have no intention of creating new jobs. Austerity measures will kill more jobs and decrease demand and along with it any corporate motivation to create new jobs.
You forgot that we launch their communications satellites, we provide at great expense the legal system and courts that make enterprise possible. We provide the security from fire and theft. We provide, in spite of their efforts, safe water for their coolers as well as their industrial applications. Enterprise doesn't happen in a vacuum. It requires a transportation infrastructure, a communications infrastructure, a legal infrastructure, a security infrastructure etc. all of which the 99% help pay for and the 1% use disproportionately to reap historically record profits.

In my State the roads are paid for by ordinary tax payers at the pumps. We educate the people who work for the corporations, laborers and executives. Giant farms get State subsidies. In my rural town the taxpayers pay for an airport that only the wealthy use. And to draw big corporations to our state and keep them in our State and Cities we give their factories and their outlets all sorts of tax breaks, tax incentives and free tax zones (all in addition to the Bush tax cuts). No fucking wonder they're making out like bandits. 1% of people have taken possession of 90% of our wealth__and they're uncertain?! Bullshit.



Again...you would have us believe corporations are leeches sucking off the little guy. That's not only laughable, it's a false narrative. If you want to remove the farm subsidies and other loop holes...you'll get no argument from me. You lament cities and towns offering tax breaks to attract business. Why do they do that if corporations are as you say ? Perhaps you know things they don't? Perhaps these cities were never versed in
Keynesian economics like you appearently were?
They do it to increase the tax base, attract more workers to the municipality that in turn also pay more taxes, and businesses attract other satellite businesses.
Now less emotion and more facts....Price Waterhouse released a comprehensive study on the effective tax rate of the worlds 2000 largest corporations. For clarification...The effective tax rate is the share of global pretax income that actually is paid in taxes to various levels of government in the U.S. and abroad.
The study essentially found that U.S. corporations paid an average effective tax rate of 27.7 percent from 2006 to 2009, compared with an average of 19.5 percent for foreign-based corporations. The U.S. effective tax rate was the sixth-highest among the 61 countries that are home to large corporations, behind Japan, Morocco, Italy, Indonesia, and Germany.

Business pays taxes on their profits...not sales. So you and the crew down in the Park are being duped if you and your protestor friends believe statements like this..."Company X had 5 million in sales and paid no income tax" As you may know...profit margins on most business is very small. The average net margin in the supermarket business is just 1 to 2 percent of sales, for instance, which means that a company with $50 million in sales would earn, on average just $500,000-to-$1 million annually and pay taxes on that money. Many firms in the industry, of course, would be below that average, and some would lose money in any year. Here's a quick look at what some large US corporations paid in corporate Income taxes....AT&T 8.3 billion, Exxon, Mobil and Conoco all paid over 10 billion ...a 40% effective rate. Wal-Mart an effective rate of 33% or 7 billion. Verizon 9 billion.
Your anti business mantra is based purely on ideology, and not facts. You wanna squeeze business even more? ...say hello to more US jobs flowing over to India and China.
Or as Ross Perot liked to say..."that huge sucking sound is US jobs leaving" You seem perplexed that business sees Obama as the most anti business president in a generation. He's whipped them like a mule for 3 years both rhetorically and with over regulation, now he wants them to start hiring? Sorry Barry. You made your bed.
By the way....have you and the 99ers come up with a defination of who exactly is "wealthy"?

[jerseyboy72]

Again...you would have us believe corporations are leeches sucking off the little guy. That's not only laughable, it's a false narrative. If you want to remove the farm subsidies and other loop holes...you'll get no argument from me. You lament cities and towns offering tax breaks to attractive business. Why do they do that if corporations are as you say ? Perhaps you know things they don't? Perhaps these cities were never versed in
Keynesian economics like you appearently were?
They do it to increase the tax base, attract more workers to the municipality that in turn also pay more taxes, and businesses attract other satellite businesses.
Now less emotion and more facts....Price Waterhouse released a comprehensive study on the effective tax rate of the worlds 2000 largest corporations. For clarification...The effective tax rate is the share of global pretax income that actually is paid in taxes to various levels of government in the U.S. and abroad.
The study essentially found that U.S. corporations paid an average effective tax rate of 27.7 percent from 2006 to 2009, compared with an average of 19.5 percent for foreign-based corporations. The U.S. effective tax rate was the sixth-highest among the 61 countries that are home to large corporations, behind Japan, Morocco, Italy, Indonesia, and Germany.

Business pays taxes on their profits...not sales. So you and the crew down in the Park are being duped if you and your protestor friends believe statements like this..."Company X had 5 million in sales and paid no income tax" As you may know...profit margins on most business is very small. The average net margin in the supermarket business is just 1 to 2 percent of sales, for instance, which means that a company with $50 million in sales would earn, on average just $500,000-to-$1 million annually and pay taxes on that money. Many firms in the industry, of course, would be below that average, and some would lose money in any year. Here's a quick look at what some large US corporations paid in corporate Income taxes....AT&T 8.3 billion, Exxon, Mobil and Conoco all paid over 10 billion ...a 40% effective rate. Wal-Mart an effective rate of 33% or 7 billion. Verizon 9 billion.
Your anti business mantra is based purely on ideology, and not facts. You wanna squeeze business even more? ...say hello to more US jobs flowing over to India and China.
Or as Ross Perot liked to say..."that huge sucking sound is US jobs leaving" You seem perplexed that business sees Obama as the most anti business president in a generation. He's whipped them like a mule for 3 years both rhetorically and with over regulation, now he wants them to start hiring? Sorry Barry. You made your bed.
By the way....have you and the 99ers come up with a defination of who exactly is "wealthy"?

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

[BluegrassCat]

And so the question remains....why has Obama been unscarred by the Protest Wall Street Crowd? He's taken more in campaign contributions from them than anyone in history, and all of his financial team are former Wall Street fraternity brothers.

business sees Obama as the most anti business president in a generation. He's whipped them like a mule for 3 years both rhetorically and with over regulation, now he wants them to start hiring?


Wait so is he the most corporate president ever or the most populist? That's the problem with regurgitating talking points, you change your "mind" all the time without ever knowing why or perhaps even that you change it at all.



And companies are indeed sitting on record amounts of cash, but it's not the reason you lament. It's uncertainty.

This is utter fucking BULLSHIT!! Not only is there no evidence for this canard, but there's plenty of evidence against it. Can you say Low Demand? (Hint: it's not spelled LMAO)

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i269/Megworen/businessproblems.png


http://www.epi.org/publication/regulatory-uncertainty-phony-explanation/

[BigDF]

I've been watching this thread for awhile as well as the OWS coverage in the media and one of the things I've noticed is that both sides seem to forget a key factor in this whole debacle. Regardless of which side of the debate you're on, we are all living in this country together and our infrastructure is crumbling around us. And with nearly 14 million people out of work, our tax revenues are also suffering, so no meaningful repairs are being made. When the bridge collapses it won't matter what your social strata is, everyone on it is going in the river. :geek:

[Faldur]

I've been watching this thread for awhile as well as the OWS coverage in the media and one of the things I've noticed is that both sides seem to forget a key factor in this whole debacle. Regardless of which side of the debate you're on, we are all living in this country together and our infrastructure is crumbling around us. And with nearly 14 million people out of work, our tax revenues are also suffering, so no meaningful repairs are being made. When the bridge collapses it won't matter what your social strata is, everyone on it is going in the river. :geek:

Well keep your water wings in the passenger seat. Its one of the results of spending all your money on candy and toys, there is nothing left to pay the rent.

[BluegrassCat]

Well keep your water wings in the passenger seat. Its one of the results of spending all your money on candy and toys, there is nothing left to pay the rent.


See the Tea Party cheers the idea of a bridge collapsing under hundreds of people, just like they cheer executions and letting people without insurance die.
And btw infrastructure repair is exactly what Obama has been pushing. Things that should be nonpartisan have become partisan and it's not Obama's doing.

[Stavros]

Come on Faldur, you can do better than that. BigDF is suggesting that while the OWS protestors turn their gaze (and their impotent rage) skywards to the boardrooms of Wall St, the streets around them are falling into disrepair. I know you loathe Keynesian economics, but it would be a better use of your resources to marshal a million young men and get them re-furbishing your infrastructure, from Highway 61 to the Hoover Dam -and at least it's an option. In one post you have predicted a victory for Tea Party enthusiasts in next year's elections, which suggests you should be optimistic about the future, yet you let yourself down in your latest post- it beggars belief that Americans have run out of ideas...and if those troops of young workers were out there re-building your country, they would be paying their own rent, spending some money in local shops, and probably not hanging around Wall St whining about the filthy rich...

[Faldur]

See the Tea Party cheers the idea of a bridge collapsing under hundreds of people, just like they cheer executions and letting people without insurance die.
And btw infrastructure repair is exactly what Obama has been pushing. Things that should be nonpartisan have become partisan and it's not Obama's doing.

Lol, you don't have the money.. maybe you should of thought of Infrastructure before you squandered your fortune. And your dramatic comment about letting people die was very touching.. you do know there is not a state in the union where a citizen would be refused medical care, weather the means to pay was there or not? I'm not for the federal government buying peoples food, am I starving the world also?

[Faldur]

Ok, sorry to those that frequent the political forum, but this little gem just has to be shared. A pissed off hippie from Mom's basement declares war on Oakland.. God I'm going to miss this shit when its gone.

I have handcuffs! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieeNvciXULM&feature=player_embedded)

[MdR Dave]

Seriously, they're called "teabaggers". They've had the Koch brothers' balls in their mouths since day one.

The worst part is that most of them don't even know it.

[BluegrassCat]

Lol, you don't have the money.. maybe you should of thought of Infrastructure before you squandered your fortune. And your dramatic comment about letting people die was very touching.. you do know there is not a state in the union where a citizen would be refused medical care, weather the means to pay was there or not? I'm not for the federal government buying peoples food, am I starving the world also?


The Tea Party lol's as the country collapses. And it's not "my" dramatic comment, it was shouted to the rooftops by the vicious mob that would rather see American burn than become a country where whites are the minority.

[Faldur]

Come on Faldur, you can do better than that. BigDF is suggesting that while the OWS protestors turn their gaze (and their impotent rage) skywards to the boardrooms of Wall St, the streets around them are falling into disrepair. I know you loathe Keynesian economics, but it would be a better use of your resources to marshal a million young men and get them re-furbishing your infrastructure, from Highway 61 to the Hoover Dam -and at least it's an option. In one post you have predicted a victory for Tea Party enthusiasts in next year's elections, which suggests you should be optimistic about the future, yet you let yourself down in your latest post- it beggars belief that Americans have run out of ideas...and if those troops of young workers were out there re-building your country, they would be paying their own rent, spending some money in local shops, and probably not hanging around Wall St whining about the filthy rich...

Unfortunately Stavros I just don't see how any of that can be paid for. Most states are broke, due to irresponsible spending. The federal government is broke, we can't afford it unless we cut back the spending so we can re-allocate the funds. In my opinion, if you went forward with a proposal such as that you would have the finest roads and infrastructure in a bankrupt country. It would be like remodeling your kitchen while your house was being foreclosed on. To me it makes no sense.

[Faldur]

where whites are the minority.

Give me one fact to back up that statement.

[BluegrassCat]

Give me one fact to back up that statement.

This is from 2009, it may have accelerated since then.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/us/18census.html

[Silcc69]

Unfortunately Stavros I just don't see how any of that can be paid for. Most states are broke, due to irresponsible spending. The federal government is broke, we can't afford it unless we cut back the spending so we can re-allocate the funds. In my opinion, if you went forward with a proposal such as that you would have the finest roads and infrastructure in a bankrupt country. It would be like remodeling your kitchen while your house was being foreclosed on. To me it makes no sense.

But we would be better served not only cutting back but also raising taxes. Something the republicans don't seem to interested in.

[Faldur]

This is from 2009, it may have accelerated since then.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/us/18census.html

Lol, not the fact that were becoming a minority. A fact backing up your basis for the comment "vicious mob that would rather see American burn than become a country where whites are the minority." Its baseless, and nothing more than your opinion.

Sorry my selective quote could have contained the additional info, figured you would understand what I meant.

[BluegrassCat]

Lol, not the fact that were becoming a minority. A fact backing up your basis for the comment "vicious mob that would rather see American burn than become a country where whites are the minority." Its baseless, and nothing more than your opinion.

Sorry my selective quote could have contained the additional info, figured you would understand what I meant.

Of course it's my opinion, but that doesn't make it baseless. Check out Pat Buchanan's new book, its the manifesto for this point of view.

[Heather Moorland]

Unfortunately Stavros I just don't see .....
Greece is broke because Stavros is lazy :party:

[onmyknees]

See the Tea Party cheers the idea of a bridge collapsing under hundreds of people, just like they cheer executions and letting people without insurance die.
And btw infrastructure repair is exactly what Obama has been pushing. Things that should be nonpartisan have become partisan and it's not Obama's doing.

I hear this argument about infrastructure constantly, and your assessment of it is fairly accurate, your blame however is asinine, with all due respect. Let's take New York for example...a gallon of gas is $3.50. Of that, 3/4 of it are federal and state taxes. Think about how many gallons of gas are sold in NY on a daily basis. There were 555 billion gallons of gas sold in the 1st Q 2011 in the US. Do the math and tell me how the Tea Party figures into that equation? . Additionally, the last time I crossed the GW bridge it was 10 bucks.....each way. Ever see that bridge at rush hour? Also there are appropriations in every state budget for transportation projects, for infrastructure, and you blame the tea party ? Laughable...So where does all this money earmarked for road projects go?
Ever hear of the big dig in Boston? You should have...you're paying for it. It's no different than any other major highway project. Sleazy politicians giving no show jobs and contracts to political hacks and contributors,.( unions) Cost over runs, delays, poor engineering, and now they're afraid it leaks. Trump could have built that tunnel for half the money and and a third of the time, but then liberal politicians in Mass wouldn't have been able to line the pockets of political cronies. Got any blame in that rather large gullet of yours for John Kerry and Ted Kennedy? You should because they're directly responsible for this disaster .
Ever hear of the late Congressman John Murtha and his multi billion dollar airport that landed a whopping 3 planes a day ( including his ) ? He's currently under investigation, for this and other boondoggles....( oh yea....another liberal) unfortunately he's taking a long dirt nap. Or the late Robert Byrd who built 6 lane highways that are still not open....or secured transportation funds for a multi million dollar nuclear clock in of all places......West Virginia? And you blame the Tea Party?
There is more than enough taxes collected, more than enough tolls and motor vehicle fees charged. The problem is as it has always been....corruption, mis- allocation, waste and fraud, quasi government agencies set up by politicians that answer to no one, and political thievery. Your attempt to place blame anywhere but where it belongs defies logic and facts, but I understand there's an election coming and the blame game seems to suit folks of your persuasion rather well. And now you want more infrastructure spending.....which will have to be borrowed from China or Japan, and repayed with interest. For every dollar spent, 42 cents must be borrowed. I'm glad you're not handling my investment portfolio !

[Ben]

Occupy Hollywood? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNE3XFqk4Tk)

[Ben]

Celebrities Speak Out on 'Occupy Wall Street' - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD6Ak6O7nVE&NR=1)

[Ben]

How dare they treat Geraldo like this.

Geraldo and Fox run away from Wall Street. - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpwab9BNC4M&feature=related)

I mean, he has done some quality/important programs:

GERALDO TV SHOW - RACIAL FIGHT 1988 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgKkuMDlIq0)

[fred41]

How dare they treat Geraldo like this.

Geraldo and Fox run away from Wall Street. - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpwab9BNC4M&feature=related)

I mean, he has done some quality/important programs:

GERALDO TV SHOW - RACIAL FIGHT 1988 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgKkuMDlIq0)

I'm not a big fan of Geraldo but, number one - he didn't run...he quietly left because there was no point in staying..there was no debate...nothing...he was just drowned out...(and he still let a few people take pics of him).

...number two - that guy at the end proved that what people were saying about them is true: they are a lot of idiots in the park.
no debate, not anything...we'll just drown you out with our idiotic, loud repetition, until we annoy the shit out of any real thinking man...it's like the drunk at a bar who thinks he's winning an argument with you because he just gets loud enough to drown you out and doesn't shut the fuck up.

[BluegrassCat]

I hear this argument about infrastructure constantly, and your assessment of it is fairly accurate, your blame however is asinine, with all due respect. Let's take New York for example...a gallon of gas is $3.50. Of that, 3/4 of it are federal and state taxes. Think about how many gallons of gas are sold in NY on a daily basis. There were 555 billion gallons of gas sold in the 1st Q 2011 in the US. Do the math and tell me how the Tea Party figures into that equation? . Additionally, the last time I crossed the GW bridge it was 10 bucks.....each way. Ever see that bridge at rush hour? Also there are appropriations in every state budget for transportation projects, for infrastructure, and you blame the tea party ? Laughable...So where does all this money earmarked for road projects go?
Ever hear of the big dig in Boston? You should have...you're paying for it. It's no different than any other major highway project. Sleazy politicians giving no show jobs and contracts to political hacks and contributors,.( unions) Cost over runs, delays, poor engineering, and now they're afraid it leaks. Trump could have built that tunnel for half the money and and a third of the time, but then liberal politicians in Mass wouldn't have been able to line the pockets of political cronies. Got any blame in that rather large gullet of yours for John Kerry and Ted Kennedy? You should because they're directly responsible for this disaster .
Ever hear of the late Congressman John Murtha and his multi billion dollar airport that landed a whopping 3 planes a day ( including his ) ? He's currently under investigation, for this and other boondoggles....( oh yea....another liberal) unfortunately he's taking a long dirt nap. Or the late Robert Byrd who built 6 lane highways that are still not open....or secured transportation funds for a multi million dollar nuclear clock in of all places......West Virginia? And you blame the Tea Party?
There is more than enough taxes collected, more than enough tolls and motor vehicle fees charged. The problem is as it has always been....corruption, mis- allocation, waste and fraud, quasi government agencies set up by politicians that answer to no one, and political thievery. Your attempt to place blame anywhere but where it belongs defies logic and facts, but I understand there's an election coming and the blame game seems to suit folks of your persuasion rather well. And now you want more infrastructure spending.....which will have to be borrowed from China or Japan, and repayed with interest. For every dollar spent, 42 cents must be borrowed. I'm glad you're not handling my investment portfolio !

I've got to give you credit: you have an impressive talent for sleight of hand, obfuscation and deception, but then of course everyone on here, even the new girl Debra, already knew that.

1. The US government does not borrow money from any foreign country. We sell our bonds on the open market and countries invest in us because we're such a safe bet. Btw where are those soaring interest rates you guys predicted? Score another point for Keynes.
2. You selectively presented a few boondoggles and yes such things can happen with crony capitalism and corrupt politicians. Both the private and public sectors have examples of wasteful and corrupt expenditures so we should...never build anything again? That's just insane.
3. The stimulus infrastructure has not been guilty of such boondoggles. It has been one of the most transparent government spending programs ever and with 100 million to spend and 30,000 projects there will be some waste but the vast majority has been effective and useful. Don't forget: the Stimulus was wildly successful given its small size, it provided a multiplier of X2 and created millions of jobs.
4. Your drooling comment about Donald Trump inadvertently made a good point. Why aren't the Donald Trumps of America out there building infrastructure quickly and efficiently? Why do so many construction workers remain unemployed? It's because with demand so low the private sector has no incentive to spend and invest now. The government is the only entity willing and able to spend in this liquidity trap recession we find ourselves in. And there's never going to be a better time to invest in infrastructure than right now because interest rates are so low, materials are cheap and thanks to high unemployment labor is cheap too, that we can pay far less now than we would at some point down the road. You tea-baggers are always moaning about the debt we're going to leave to "our children", well guess what, a broken infrastructure is another cost we could hand down to our kids. It has to be fixed eventually, so we can wait and punish our kids with it or we can do it now for cheap and boost the economy when it desperately needs it. This is exactly what Obama is trying to do and what the Tea Party is stopping him from doing. That's why I blame the Tea Party; because they are the ones to blame.

You see America as broken and bankrupt and unable to deal with our challenges; that we should just sit back and make it easier for the rich to extract the last bits of wealth from our once great middle class. I think America is still strong and still able to face its challenges if we have the courage to be honest about our problems and the conviction to follow through on rebuilding and revitalizing the middle class.

I'm glad you're not handling my country's economic policy!

[onmyknees]

The US government does not borrow money from any foreign country. We sell our bonds on the open market and countries invest in us because we're such a safe bet. Btw where are those soaring interest rates you guys predicted? Score another point for Keynes.


Correct in part Einstien....but who's buying more debt than any other country or bank? Google it and get back to me....

[amanda_m]

100% agree BG CAT!!

[robertlouis]

The problem is that you need FDR and you've got Obama.

[russtafa]

I'm not a big fan of Geraldo but, number one - he didn't run...he quietly left because there was no point in staying..there was no debate...nothing...he was just drowned out...(and he still let a few people take pics of him).

...number two - that guy at the end proved that what people were saying about them is true: they are a lot of idiots in the park.
no debate, not anything...we'll just drown you out with our idiotic, loud repetition, until we annoy the shit out of any real thinking man...it's like the drunk at a bar who thinks he's winning an argument with you because he just gets loud enough to drown you out and doesn't shut the fuck up.
yes they most surly are mate, freaks and nutters who the mainstream public will never take seriously and they just start pissing people off looking at the filthy things so they loose:shrug the media shows lots of filthy unwashed freaks so who's going to believe them?

[onmyknees]

I've got to give you credit: you have an impressive talent for sleight of hand, obfuscation and deception, but then of course everyone on here, even the new girl Debra, already knew that.

1. The US government does not borrow money from any foreign country. We sell our bonds on the open market and countries invest in us because we're such a safe bet. Btw where are those soaring interest rates you guys predicted? Score another point for Keynes.
2. You selectively presented a few boondoggles and yes such things can happen with crony capitalism and corrupt politicians. Both the private and public sectors have examples of wasteful and corrupt expenditures so we should...never build anything again? That's just insane.
3. The stimulus infrastructure has not been guilty of such boondoggles. It has been one of the most transparent government spending programs ever and with 100 million to spend and 30,000 projects there will be some waste but the vast majority has been effective and useful. Don't forget: the Stimulus was wildly successful given its small size, it provided a multiplier of X2 and created millions of jobs.
4. Your drooling comment about Donald Trump inadvertently made a good point. Why aren't the Donald Trumps of America out there building infrastructure quickly and efficiently? Why do so many construction workers remain unemployed? It's because with demand so low the private sector has no incentive to spend and invest now. The government is the only entity willing and able to spend in this liquidity trap recession we find ourselves in. And there's never going to be a better time to invest in infrastructure than right now because interest rates are so low, materials are cheap and thanks to high unemployment labor is cheap too, that we can pay far less now than we would at some point down the road. You tea-baggers are always moaning about the debt we're going to leave to "our children", well guess what, a broken infrastructure is another cost we could hand down to our kids. It has to be fixed eventually, so we can wait and punish our kids with it or we can do it now for cheap and boost the economy when it desperately needs it. This is exactly what Obama is trying to do and what the Tea Party is stopping him from doing. That's why I blame the Tea Party; because they are the ones to blame.

You see America as broken and bankrupt and unable to deal with our challenges; that we should just sit back and make it easier for the rich to extract the last bits of wealth from our once great middle class. I think America is still strong and still able to face its challenges if we have the courage to be honest about our problems and the conviction to follow through on rebuilding and revitalizing the middle class.

I'm glad you're not handling my country's economic policy!

You selectively presented a few boondoggles and yes such things can happen with crony capitalism and corrupt politicians. Both the private and public sectors have examples of wasteful and corrupt expenditures so we should...never build anything again? That's just insane.


Selectively ???????????LMAO....These are just a few. I could use all the bandwith this site has on waste and fraud...be it transportation funds, or taxpayer dollars given to green energy company. Got a crumbling bridge in your town? Sorry but those dollars went to Solyndra . Get real man....where the fuck is the money going



The stimulus infrastructure has not been guilty of such boondoggles. It has been one of the most transparent government spending programs ever and with 100 million to spend and 30,000 projects there will be some waste but the vast majority has been effective and useful. Don't forget: the Stimulus was wildly successful given its small size, it provided a multiplier of X2 and created millions of jobs.


Is that the one Joe Biden was suppose to let us know how every dollar was spent ? Tell Joe we're still waitin'. Again...there's not enough bandwidth to show how much of that money was pissed away to bundlers and political hacks. And if it was such a smashing success...how come the unemployment rate amoung the construction trades is 18% ? And how come we need another one?
You're probably not a bad guy, ( albeit a dupe) but you need to stop getting your info off the gov.com websites. You think they're gonna give you the straight scoop ? And explain what a "saved" job is and how one calculates that?


Why isn't Donald Trump building? Who the fuck is he suppose to sell to? In case you haven't read the news...there's a housing depression and a real estate glut of office space.. And it takes 3-5 years in permitting to break ground on any high rise building in NY, so if he started today...Obama would be back teaching Law at U of Chicago by the time they moved the first dirt. Not a bad thought !!!! Now you know.


And BTW...these protest buddies of yours....I really have to laugh....

they deplore Wall Street skunks and bailouts, but seem to be real sympathetic to Obama, yet who are the banks, the car companies and the hedge funds and the mortgage brookers running to when they need a bail out? Right back to Penn. Ave from thier buddies who were once thier co-workers down on Wall Street. Rich Irony...wouldn't ya say?


"
"You see America as broken and bankrupt and unable to deal with our challenges; that we should just sit back and make it easier for the rich to extract the last bits of wealth from our once great middle class. I think America is still strong and still able to face its challenges if we have the courage to be honest about our problems and the conviction to follow through on rebuilding and revitalizing the middle class."

No...wrong. I see America as divided as never before from an administration who has used class warfare as a political tactic from the day the campaign ended, who demagogues success, hard work and investment to the point where he's pitted one group against another, and made it seem that if you're down on your luck or unemployed...there's some rich guy behind the curtain who put you there. It will take a generation and a real leader to put this mess back together, and who's put us in a position that for the first time in the nations history....we face economic Armageddon. And that my friend is not an overstatement.

[Helvis2012]

I'm not a big fan of Geraldo but, number one - he didn't run...he quietly left because there was no point in staying..there was no debate...nothing...he was just drowned out...(and he still let a few people take pics of him).

...number two - that guy at the end proved that what people were saying about them is true: they are a lot of idiots in the park.
no debate, not anything...we'll just drown you out with our idiotic, loud repetition, until we annoy the shit out of any real thinking man...it's like the drunk at a bar who thinks he's winning an argument with you because he just gets loud enough to drown you out and doesn't shut the fuck up.


The video clearly shows, the issue was not Geraldo but rather, Fox News. Seems par for the course to me since Fox and the protesters are diametrically opposed to one another.

[BluegrassCat]

The US government does not borrow money from any foreign country. We sell our bonds on the open market and countries invest in us because we're such a safe bet. Btw where are those soaring interest rates you guys predicted? Score another point for Keynes.


Correct in part Einstien....but who's buying more debt than any other country or bank? Google it and get back to me....

Who owns the most debt, why America itself does of course. Sorry no link, I don't have to google that one. But feel free to go hunting.

[BluegrassCat]

You selectively presented a few boondoggles and yes such things can happen with crony capitalism and corrupt politicians. Both the private and public sectors have examples of wasteful and corrupt expenditures so we should...never build anything again? That's just insane.


Selectively ???????????LMAO....These are just a few. I could use all the bandwith this site has on waste and fraud...be it transportation funds, or taxpayer dollars given to green energy company. Got a crumbling bridge in your town? Sorry but those dollars went to Solyndra . Get real man....where the fuck is the money going



The stimulus infrastructure has not been guilty of such boondoggles. It has been one of the most transparent government spending programs ever and with 100 million to spend and 30,000 projects there will be some waste but the vast majority has been effective and useful. Don't forget: the Stimulus was wildly successful given its small size, it provided a multiplier of X2 and created millions of jobs.


Is that the one Joe Biden was suppose to let us know how every dollar was spent ? Tell Joe we're still waitin'. Again...there's not enough bandwidth to show how much of that money was pissed away to bundlers and political hacks. And if it was such a smashing success...how come the unemployment rate amoung the construction trades is 18% ? And how come we need another one?
You're probably not a bad guy, ( albeit a dupe) but you need to stop getting your info off the gov.com websites. You think they're gonna give you the straight scoop ? And explain what a "saved" job is and how one calculates that?


Why isn't Donald Trump building? Who the fuck is he suppose to sell to? In case you haven't read the news...there's a housing depression and a real estate glut of office space.. And it takes 3-5 years in permitting to break ground on any high rise building in NY, so if he started today...Obama would be back teaching Law at U of Chicago by the time they moved the first dirt. Not a bad thought !!!! Now you know.


And BTW...these protest buddies of yours....I really have to laugh....

they deplore Wall Street skunks and bailouts, but seem to be real sympathetic to Obama, yet who are the banks, the car companies and the hedge funds and the mortgage brookers running to when they need a bail out? Right back to Penn. Ave from thier buddies who were once thier co-workers down on Wall Street. Rich Irony...wouldn't ya say?


"
"You see America as broken and bankrupt and unable to deal with our challenges; that we should just sit back and make it easier for the rich to extract the last bits of wealth from our once great middle class. I think America is still strong and still able to face its challenges if we have the courage to be honest about our problems and the conviction to follow through on rebuilding and revitalizing the middle class."

No...wrong. I see America as divided as never before from an administration who has used class warfare as a political tactic from the day the campaign ended, who demagogues success, hard work and investment to the point where he's pitted one group against another, and made it seem that if you're down on your luck or unemployed...there's some rich guy behind the curtain who put you there. It will take a generation and a real leader to put this mess back together, and who's put us in a position that for the first time in the nations history....we face economic Armageddon. And that my friend is not an overstatement.

So again, your only point seems to be that because there has been corruption sometimes in the past we should never build anything again. If that's the way you feel, then you're a defeatist like I said.

And finally you agree with me about the Trump example. As you said it's a lack of demand, which is why the only body capable of jump-starting the economy is the federal government.

What percentage of the Energy Dept.'s Loan Guarantee $38 billion portfolio did Solyndra make up? Go ahead google it. (1.3%)

And again you want Obama to be both too corporate and too anti-corporate at the same time. I find him far too corporate as does the OWS crowd. Have you actually gone down there and talked to them? Cause I have.

You could be a decent guy if you got out into the real world and stopped relying on the horsehit Fox News is shoveling your way. Try some fresh air.

[natina]

An Open Letter to the White Right, On the Occasion of Your Recent, Successful Temper Tantrum (http://www.timwise.org/2010/11/an-open-letter-to-the-white-right-on-the-occasion-of-your-recent-successful-temper-tantrum/)
http://www.timwise.org/2010/11/an-open-letter-to-the-white-right-on-the-occasion-of-your-recent-successful-temper-tantrum/

Tim Wise: On White Privilege (Clip)

Tim Wise: On White Privilege (Clip) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3Xe1kX7Wsc)



Bird and Fortune - Subprime Crisis - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzJmTCYmo9g)

Bird and Fortune - Financial Adviser - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXBcmqwTV9s)



Never heard of Tim Wise (I can't imagine why :whistle:) but that dude is speaking the TRUTH. Wow!!!

[Stavros]

I think that the principle of infrastructural investment as one way of reducing unemployment and stimulating the local economy is sound, its not my fault if the project management skills in the USA are not up to scratch, its clearly not a Republican or Democract speciality as I recall the Republicans selected for it made a complete mess of the rebuilding of Iraq, and the Project Manager, Lewis Paul Bremer the Third (sounds Like George the Third) did not have the courtesy to discuss any of his wacky and destuctive Republican-inspired policies with the British Prime Minister, and as we say in the UK, he legged it as soon as he could to leave other people to clear up his Republican neo-con mess; -there must be something about politicians who have been in office year after year, it seems to detach them from day to reality, its not about the name tag on the party. We have the same incompetence in the UK, and right now the government is busy sacking civil servants, I only expect it to get worse. But as an argument, there are not so many alternatives, unless suddenly the recession we are all in comes to an end.

Bu then this from onmyknees:
No...wrong. I see America as divided as never before from an administration who has used class warfare as a political tactic from the day the campaign ended, who demagogues success, hard work and investment to the point where he's pitted one group against another, and made it seem that if you're down on your luck or unemployed...there's some rich guy behind the curtain who put you there. It will take a generation and a real leader to put this mess back together, and who's put us in a position that for the first time in the nations history....we face economic Armageddon. And that my friend is not an overstatement.

Aggression posturing, the rhetoric of armageddon is the tone set by successive Republican administrations -it suits you to describe your situatio as 'economic armageddon' because it is the Republicans who have declared war -first on other Republicans or 'RINOS'- and then everyone else who disagrees with the slash and burn attitude to taxes and regulation, which our weak Conservative party is trying to railroad through Parliament here. There are other ways of doing it, but we are sinking into a 10-year, Japanese style decade of no growth, and I don't see much to be too optimistic about, but Armageddon, as in, we all die horrible deaths? Too theatrical. This is real life, not Broadway.

[Prospero]

The problem is that you need FDR and you've got Obama.

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

I think that the democrats only real hope of re-election would be for Obama to stand down and for Hilary to run. Fat chance.

[trish]

So again, your only point seems to be that because there has been corruption sometimes in the past we should never build anything again. If that's the way you feel, then you're a defeatist like I said.

And finally you agree with me about the Trump example. As you said it's a lack of demand, which is why the only body capable of jump-starting the economy is the federal government.

What percentage of the Energy Dept.'s Loan Guarantee $38 billion portfolio did Solyndra make up? Go ahead google it. (1.3%)

And again you want Obama to be both too corporate and too anti-corporate at the same time. I find him far too corporate as does the OWS crowd. Have you actually gone down there and talked to them? Cause I have.

You could be a decent guy if you got out into the real world and stopped relying on the horsehit Fox News is shoveling your way. Try some fresh air.:claps:claps:claps:claps:claps
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/owss-beef-wall-street-isnt-winning-its-cheating-20111025

[needsum]

You're right, but I fail to see how that gives the government the right to tell us how to spend our money when most people are still trying to catch up on past debt, particularly if they've learned their lesson.

I'm sorry, but IMO, debt is a much bigger problem than health care in this country, and one that will continue to grow if we keep spending... even if it's for health care. I really feel like overhauls to the system should have waited at least until we were independently, and as a nation, back in the black.

AC/DC - Back In Black (Live) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fSEjlLQcRY&ob=av3n)

~BB~

what you said is true, but is not anything in terms of what I was saying. My point was simply that, while this country needs to be put in check and have a major overhaul, we need to do the same at the individual level. I'm not trying to boost the government in any way at all. Id like to see it all burn to the ground and have to start over 100%. I think the current government is as corrupt and inadequate as any institution could ever be.

[BellaBellucci]

what you said is true, but is not anything in terms of what I was saying. My point was simply that, while this country needs to be put in check and have a major overhaul, we need to do the same at the individual level. I'm not trying to boost the government in any way at all. Id like to see it all burn to the ground and have to start over 100%. I think the current government is as corrupt and inadequate as any institution could ever be.

I so wub you! :Bowdown:

~BB~

[Silcc69]

Interesting article.....

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/10/27/the-middle-class-squeeze-falling-wealth-rising-costs/

[needsum]

I so wub you! :Bowdown:

~BB~

don't tease me now baby..... ;)

[needsum]

Warren Buffett, "I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all
sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election. The 26th
amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months
& 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in
1971...before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc. Of the 27 amendments to
the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the
land...all because of public pressure.

Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of
twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do
likewise.
In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the
message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.

*Congressional Reform Act of 2011*

1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman collects a salary while in office
and receives no pay when they are out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security. All
funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security
system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system,
and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for
any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans
do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay
will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the
same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American
people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12.
The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen
made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor,
not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours
should serve their term's), then go home and back to work.

[Faldur]

I love the article that came out about how the #occupy crowd is incensed that the homeless are coming up and eating all there prepared food. Oh the irony..

Homeless eating all our food (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/zuccotti_hell_kitchen_i5biNyYYhpa8MSYIL9xSDL)

And the leaderless ground swell is becoming what they protest..

Occupy Portland files for incorporation (http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2011/10/in_downtown_portland_fears_tha.html)

[ed_jaxon]

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

I think that the democrats only real hope of re-election would be for Obama to stand down and for Hilary to run. Fat chance.

Not one of the current Repub candidates can touch Obama.

Not because he is so great but they are like crabs in a barrel pulling each other down.

I'm a democrat but it baffles me that this is the best that the GOP can do?

Huckabee would have had a cakewalk with this group.

Romney reminds me of a Republican John Kerry.

[onmyknees]

I think that the principle of infrastructural investment as one way of reducing unemployment and stimulating the local economy is sound, its not my fault if the project management skills in the USA are not up to scratch, its clearly not a Republican or Democract speciality as I recall the Republicans selected for it made a complete mess of the rebuilding of Iraq, and the Project Manager, Lewis Paul Bremer the Third (sounds Like George the Third) did not have the courtesy to discuss any of his wacky and destuctive Republican-inspired policies with the British Prime Minister, and as we say in the UK, he legged it as soon as he could to leave other people to clear up his Republican neo-con mess; -there must be something about politicians who have been in office year after year, it seems to detach them from day to reality, its not about the name tag on the party. We have the same incompetence in the UK, and right now the government is busy sacking civil servants, I only expect it to get worse. But as an argument, there are not so many alternatives, unless suddenly the recession we are all in comes to an end.

Bu then this from onmyknees:
No...wrong. I see America as divided as never before from an administration who has used class warfare as a political tactic from the day the campaign ended, who demagogues success, hard work and investment to the point where he's pitted one group against another, and made it seem that if you're down on your luck or unemployed...there's some rich guy behind the curtain who put you there. It will take a generation and a real leader to put this mess back together, and who's put us in a position that for the first time in the nations history....we face economic Armageddon. And that my friend is not an overstatement.

Aggression posturing, the rhetoric of armageddon is the tone set by successive Republican administrations -it suits you to describe your situatio as 'economic armageddon' because it is the Republicans who have declared war -first on other Republicans or 'RINOS'- and then everyone else who disagrees with the slash and burn attitude to taxes and regulation, which our weak Conservative party is trying to railroad through Parliament here. There are other ways of doing it, but we are sinking into a 10-year, Japanese style decade of no growth, and I don't see much to be too optimistic about, but Armageddon, as in, we all die horrible deaths? Too theatrical. This is real life, not Broadway.

Sometimes your attempt to sound informed on all things goes astray and you wind up saying nothing at all despite all the verbiage and that's unfortunate. ...
Perhaps you don't understand what a 15 Trillion dollar deficit means.

But hey...you got your own demons over there, so don't believe me....but listen to Former Senator Judd Gregg one of the most respected financial minds in the country on the matter. And before you dismiss him as just another "slash and burn conservative", know this....Obama sought him as his Commerce Secretary before he declined the position. His phraseology for this is Economic Tsunami....mine is Armageddon. Pick your poison, but don't dismiss it ...only a Greek or a fool would.

America's Debt Is Unsustainable- Judd Gregg - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fTjoFAZmLg)

[jerseyboy72]

No...wrong. I see America as divided as never before from an administration who has used class warfare as a political tactic from the day the campaign ended, who demagogues success, hard work and investment to the point where he's pitted one group against another, and made it seem that if you're down on your luck or unemployed...there's some rich guy behind the curtain who put you there. It will take a generation and a real leader to put this mess back together, and who's put us in a position that for the first time in the nations history....we face economic Armageddon. And that my friend is not an overstatement.

You are so right.

[russtafa]

our protesters have been moved on by the cops so now they have gone to the airport to join the customs protest.they seem to protest for any occasion

[Silcc69]

our protesters have been moved on by the cops so now they have gone to the airport to join the customs protest.they seem to protest for any occasion


lol.

[Stavros]

Sometimes your attempt to sound informed on all things goes astray and you wind up saying nothing at all despite all the verbiage and that's unfortunate. ...
Perhaps you don't understand what a 15 Trillion dollar deficit means.

But hey...you got your own demons over there, so don't believe me....but listen to Former Senator Judd Gregg one of the most respected financial minds in the country on the matter. And before you dismiss him as just another "slash and burn conservative", know this....Obama sought him as his Commerce Secretary before he declined the position. His phraseology for this is Economic Tsunami....mine is Armageddon. Pick your poison, but don't dismiss it ...only a Greek or a fool would.

America's Debt Is Unsustainable- Judd Gregg - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fTjoFAZmLg)


The irony is that you provide a link to a sensible view from Judd Gregg who presumably is regarded by apocalyptic Republicans as a RINO and would lose his seat if he were standing again. He does say the financial system has been stabilised by TARP, and he does say that at some point you Americans have the same problem we have in the UK-an ageing population who have accumulated -and in most cases paid for- their 'entitlements' for care in their own, very real 'last days'. Having stabilised the financial system, you could go on to support the President when he at least has a jobs plan - which Republicans oppose- because your deficit can be brought under control, and it can be progressively reduced if you get people back to work, be it 'real jobs' generated by industry or the private sector, or the kind of 'Keynesian' remedy we are all familiar with. My guess is that under present conditions, growth will be better in the US than in the UK, but it will be slow, and I know that the endless debate about raising taxes or lowering taxes or reforming taxes will go on and on, but your tendency to use the language of Armageddon distorts what is in essence a soluble political problem.

I actually sympathise with the problems you have referred to already concerning the mismanagement of public funds and the incompetent handling of infrastructural repairs, and so on, we have lost millions of pounds in the UK on similar projects that should have been relatively easy to complete, but none of these are issues that cannot be dealt with rationally, it is a pity the energy being used by people to moan about the bankers isn't directed at the bureaucrats in local or city government who need a kick up the ass. I am currently involved in a dispute with a government authority and the drivel I get from them in the post is one of the reasons perhaps why I write too much here...

[BluegrassCat]

but listen to Former Senator Judd Gregg one of the most respected financial minds in the country on the matter. And before you dismiss him as just another "slash and burn conservative", know this....Obama sought him as his Commerce Secretary before he declined the position. His phraseology for this is Economic Tsunami....mine is Armageddon. Pick your poison, but don't dismiss it ...only a Greek or a fool would.


"One of the most respected financial minds in the country" Bwahahaha! This is a guy with zero training as an economist. Not only that but he's so ideologically extreme he refused to serve his country when asked to do so by the POTUS. You want the top tier of financial minds, try Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman. Or if you can't deal with ideological diversity try Reagan economic advisor and Bush I Treasury official Bruce Bartlett.

If you're gonna appeal to authority, at least cite an actual authority ffs.

[hard4janira]

The problem is that you need FDR and you've got Obama.

Bollocks.

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more that we have ever spent before and it does not work....We have never made good on our promises....I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started...and an enormous debt to boot!"

Henry Morgenthau - Treasury secretary under FDR.

[Ben]

Scott Olsen 'Cannot Talk' after Injury at Occupy Oakland Protest

Iraq war veteran is believed to have sustained damage to speech centre of his brain in injury at Occupy protest on Tuesday

by Adam Gabbat
Scott Olsen, the Iraq war veteran who was seriously injured by a police projectile during a protest in Oakland, has regained consciousness but "cannot talk".

http://www.commondreams.org/sites/commondreams.org/files/imagecache/headline_image/article_images/olsen_large.jpg In this undated photo provided by Keith Shannon, Scott Olsen is shown at a protest. Olsen, 24, who apparently suffered a fractured skull in clashes between police and anti-Wall Street protesters felt so strongly about economic inequality that he left his apartment each night to sleep alongside the demonstrators, his roommate said Thursday, Oct. 27, 2011. (AP photo/Keith Shannon)

Olsen, 24, is communicating with friends and family at his bedside by writing notes, but his injury is believed to have damaged the speech centre of his brain, according to Keith Shannon, who served with Olsen in Iraq.
Olsen is believed to have been injured by a police projectile. He was hit in the forehead in downtown Oakland on Tuesday evening, after marching with fellow demonstrators to protest the closure of an Occupy Oakland (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/occupy-oakland) camp in the city.
"He cannot talk right now, and that is because the fracture is right on the speech center of his brain," said Shannon. "However, they are expecting he will get that back."
Shannon added that Olsen's "spelling is not near what it used to be".
"The doctors expect that he will have a full recovery," said Shannon, who is due to visit Olsen on Friday afternoon. "However, it is going to be a long road ahead for him."
Olsen was "really happy" to see his family, Shannon added.
A spokesman for Highland General Hospital confirmed Olsen could not talk, but said he "understands everything" doctors and family are saying. His family flew to be at his bedside on Thursday. The spokesman said Olsen remained under observation to determine if he needs surgery. His condition is "fair".
Video footage posted to YouTube shows Olsen lying motionless in front of a police line after apparently having been hit. A group of up to 10 protesters gather around him, but a police officer can be seen throwing a device close to the group which then explodes with a bright flash and loud bang, scattering the protesters. The video then cuts to footage of protesters carrying Olsen away as he bleeds from the head.
Oakland Mayor Jean Quan, who was in Washington DC when the clashes occurred, has sought to distance herself from the police action.
"I only asked the chief to do one thing: to do it when it was the safest for both the police and the demonstrators," she said.

© 2011 Guardian Media

[onmyknees]

"One of the most respected financial minds in the country" Bwahahaha! This is a guy with zero training as an economist. Not only that but he's so ideologically extreme he refused to serve his country when asked to do so by the POTUS. You want the top tier of financial minds, try Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman. Or if you can't deal with ideological diversity try Reagan economic advisor and Bush I Treasury official Bruce Bartlett.

If you're gonna appeal to authority, at least cite an actual authority ffs.


LMAO.....how much time do you have? I could go on for hours about how many times Krugman has been dead wrong. He's a professor, a theorist, and a talker and a hack, and the last Keyensian left standing. They give Nobel prizes out fairly easily nowadays, so that's hardly puts him in an elite category.

No comment on what Mr. Gregg has to say...just dismiss him? ....You're not really worth much more dialogue....you're a dupe with a closed mind. Thankfully folks like you are in retreat and in decline for your failed ideology.

[MrF]

I can sympathize with some of the themes I hear from OWS. I was pissed off when the gov't funneled billions to Wall Street to prop them up a few years ago. But I haven't followed how much of that has been paid back. I know some has, and if they paid it all back I would be satisfied because the actions did appear to avert disaster.

I'd also like to see less involvement in wars like Afghanistan. Use that money to cut the deficit. On the other hand, an active military-industrial complex does stimulate the economy.

The main problem with OWS is that it's unfocused and incoherent. Too many complaints and no clear solutions. It's not obvious how effective it would be to get the government to "do more" to help people suffering economic hardship.

I can see people resenting the financial industry, which has grown immensely in the past 30 years and tends to prey upon the population, but the way to fight that best is to resist the temptation to buy their services.

Well, that's my liberal take.

[BluegrassCat]

LMAO.....how much time do you have? I could go on for hours about how many times Krugman has been dead wrong. He's a professor, a theorist, and a talker and a hack, and the last Keyensian left standing. They give Nobel prizes out fairly easily nowadays, so that's hardly puts him in an elite category.



God, you're a hack. Since you can't name any times Krugman has been wrong you just bluster & bullshit like your hero, the compulsive liar and bully O'Reilly. You couldn't ask for a more resounding defeat of austerity trickle-down voodoo and a more conclusive victory for Keynesianism than the last 3 years. As Milton Friedman said, "We're all Keynesians now." Every single serious economist to one degree or another acknowledges the need for more stimulus.

Face it, your blind ideology has led you down a dead end. Now it's up to you, step out of your bubble and learn something about the real world or just double down on insanity. Sadly, I know what your choice will be.

[Ben]

Hartmann: Injured vet Scott Olson's roommate speaks out - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQn1wSdMJB4)

[cockgobbler]

I wonder if the Occupy protesters is New York see the irony in protesting against corporations like those in "big Oil" while at the same time using gas powered generators to keep warm.

Probably not.

[BluegrassCat]

I wonder if the Occupy protesters is New York see the irony in protesting against corporations like those in "big Oil" while at the same time using gas powered generators to keep warm.

Probably not.

Assuming you oppose murder, I wonder if you see the irony in using the internet when other people are using the internet to arrange a murder.

Probably not.

[BellaBellucci]

Assuming you oppose murder, I wonder if you see the irony in using the internet when other people are using the internet to arrange a murder.

Probably not.

LOL! :dancing:

~BB~

[cockgobbler]

Assuming you oppose murder, I wonder if you see the irony in using the internet when other people are using the internet to arrange a murder.

Probably not.

Yeah.

Cause that's a comparable, logical response.

I'm not protesting against murder or the internet while at the same time using the internet to plan a murder.

These dipshits ARE protesting against corporations like Big Oil while at the same time using products from big oil for their benifit

[robertlouis]

Assuming you oppose murder, I wonder if you see the irony in using the internet when other people are using the internet to arrange a murder.

Probably not.

Last week's Have I Got News For You, a topical news quiz show in the UK, featured a Tory MP who ridiculed the protesters in London for buying coffee in Starbucks and thereby shoring up the capitalist system. She was slammed by all of the other panelists in turn. It's patently ridiculous. We all live, for better or worse, in capitalist societies, where there are no alternatives or where co-operatives have been pushed to the margins.

Maybe the protesters in New York should be burning Teabaggers to keep warm.....

[BluegrassCat]

I'm not protesting against murder or the internet while at the same time using the internet to plan a murder.

So you're endorsing murder, then?

[BluegrassCat]

These dipshits ARE protesting against corporations like Big Oil while at the same time using products from big oil for their benifit

Wow, Big Oil sounds like a very important company. Who's their CEO, Big Boss Man?

[cockgobbler]

So you're endorsing murder, then?

In certain cases ABSOLUTELY.

Ghadafi. Sadam. Osama. Taliban. Child molestors. Rapists.

[cockgobbler]

Wow, Big Oil sounds like a very important company. Who's their CEO, Big Boss Man?

Ask the protestors.

Big Oil is their vocabulary, not mine.

[robertlouis]

In certain cases ABSOLUTELY.

Ghadafi. Sadam. Osama. Taliban. Child molestors. Rapists.

Do you mean judicial murder for the last two categories or are you advocating vigilanteism?

[onmyknees]

Blue Grass Cat.....It's clear that neither of us is going to convince the other, so let's attempt a slightly different approach. You, your left wing brethern on HA, and every lib in the country love to parrot the administration's nonsense about the wonderful effects of the billion dollar stimulus, some of us on the hand prefer to deal in mathematic absolutes and maintain its un-provable to quantify a "saved or created" job, and that the vast majority of the money went to bail out states that made bad spending decesions themselves, and that before we embark on stimulus 2, 3, etc. we should have some clear data on the affects of such enormous deficit spending because that money either has to be borrowed or printed. Now read what Senator Toomey asks the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office director, Mr. Elmendorf at a Congressional Hearing. For those who aren't familiar with the CBO, they're essentially the country's accounting firm......This is enormously instructive as you, your idol Paul Krugman and the Dems assure us we can spend our way to prosperity rather than into oblivion.


SEN. TOOMEY: I know it is your view that the recent huge increase in spending and the corresponding big deficits have generated more economic growth and more job creation that we would have had in the absence of those things. But surely you'd agree, that that essentially asks for a comparison to a counterfactual, and as such, it's completely impossible to prove?

DR. DOUGLAS ELMENDORF, director of the CBO: Yes, that's right, senator.

So if the country's top accountant who strangely happens to agree with you about spending can't prove the stimulus worked with any degree of certainty and can't produce any evidence as such.....please explain to us how you can, and why we should double down.



Now the second exchange, but no less important.......get ready for this little nugget............



TOOMEY: The last point I'd just like to ask is, I think it's your view but I like to ask, is it your view that if we were to pursue revenue neutral tax reform, that would have the effect of broadening the base upon which taxes are applied and lowering marginal rates, that it is true both with respect to such corporate reform or individual reform that that would have a pro-growth effect on the economy, which of course would in turn generates more income for the government?

ELMENDORF: Yes, that's right. Again, the amount would depend on the specifics of the proposal.

Of course you remain unconvinced, on both spending and lowering tax rates but now at least you have the facts, and can completely indulge in your own economic fairy tales. Enjoy.

[cockgobbler]

Do you mean judicial murder for the last two categories or are you advocating vigilanteism?

If they are found gulity, let the parents/family flip the switch and fry their ass.

google the case of Paul Bernardo here in Toronto.

He and his wife kindapped, raped, tortured and murdered three girls INCLUDING his wifes sister whom the wife drugged and present unconcious as a "present" to Paul Bernardo.

He was also found guilty of dozens of rapes as "the Scarborough Rapist"

He is in jail in"protective custody" for the rest of his life segregated from the rest of the prison. She served 12 years and is already out back into society.

He should have been killed years ago.

[robertlouis]

If they are found gulity, let the parents/family flip the switch and fry their ass.

:ignore: *SMH*

[MdR Dave]

Maybe the protesters in New York should be burning Teabaggers to keep warm.....

Nah, if you want heat you gotta burn something substantial.

[robertlouis]

Nah, if you want heat you gotta burn something substantial.


True, but it would be fun to watch all those pointy heads explode. :)

[cockgobbler]

:ignore: *SMH*

Not familiar with what SMH means :confused:.

[robertlouis]

Not familiar with what SMH means :confused:.

Sorry, I'll make myself clear. I don't support the death penalty under any circumstances - that's why I described it as "judicial murder".

SMH = Shake my head.

But where it does exist it should be carried out dispassionately. Giving the responsibility to the victim's family disfigures the process and corrupts the family. They may not consider themselves to be murderers, but they have to carry the knowledge that they have killed another human being.

Justice is about being appropriate, not revenge.

[cockgobbler]

Sorry, I'll make myself clear. I don't support the death penalty under any circumstances - that's why I described it as "judicial murder".

SMH = Shake my head.

But where it does exist it should be carried out dispassionately. Giving the responsibility to the victim's family disfigures the process and corrupts the family. They may not consider themselves to be murderers, but they have to carry the knowledge that they have killed another human being.

Justice is about being appropriate, not revenge.

Hey, listen.

I completely respect your views, beliefs and opinions. I just disagree with them is all.

I guess I'm more along the line of "the hanging judge". Kill someone, you deserve to die. In the Bernardo case I mentioned above there was video evidence of the rape torture and murder of the three girls.

Both he and his wife should be 6 feet under.

Again, my opinion.

But we have both kind of gone off topic of the thread,

[MdR Dave]

OMK- your understanding of taxes and the macroeconomy is dim.

For the record, the nation's top accountant does not work at the CBO- those guys are flacks and hacks, just like most everyone in gvt. without decision power. (Those with decision power are worse- at some level they are just politicians. )

[robertlouis]

Hey, listen.

I completely respect your views, beliefs and opinions. I just disagree with them is all.

I guess I'm more along the line of "the hanging judge". Kill someone, you deserve to die. In the Bernardo case I mentioned above there was video evidence of the rape torture and murder of the three girls.

Both he and his wife should be 6 feet under.

Again, my opinion.

But we have both kind of gone off topic of the thread,

OK, briefly, I respect your views too without agreeing with them. What made me "SMH" was your assertion that the family of the victim should be actively involved in the execution. That can never be right.

[cockgobbler]

OK, briefly, I respect your views too without agreeing with them. What made me "SMH" was your assertion that the family of the victim should be actively involved in the execution. That can never be right.

Again, repsecting your opinion, I really think that if someone killed a member of my family I would want to be the one to flip the switch.

If that situation ever actually materalized would my opinion differ?

I can honestly say I don'r know for sure, but I THINK not.

[BluegrassCat]

Blue Grass Cat.....It's clear that neither of us is going to convince the other, so let's attempt a slightly different approach. You, your left wing brethern on HA, and every lib in the country love to parrot the administration's nonsense about the wonderful effects of the billion dollar stimulus, some of us on the hand prefer to deal in mathematic absolutes and maintain its un-provable to quantify a "saved or created" job, and that the vast majority of the money went to bail out states that made bad spending decesions themselves, and that before we embark on stimulus 2, 3, etc. we should have some clear data on the affects of such enormous deficit spending because that money either has to be borrowed or printed. Now read what Senator Toomey asks the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office director, Mr. Elmendorf at a Congressional Hearing. For those who aren't familiar with the CBO, they're essentially the country's accounting firm......This is enormously instructive as you, your idol Paul Krugman and the Dems assure us we can spend our way to prosperity rather than into oblivion.



Dear God, does your intellectual dishonesty know no bounds??? You claim you want to deal in facts, please start, I've been waiting. The entire economics profession has countless charts, graphs and models that all point to the effectiveness of the stimulus and the need for more. Here's one based on the model by conservative Douglas Holtz-Eakin:
http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i269/Megworen/holtz_eakin2.png

Where's your evidence? If what you claim is so obviously true it would show up in the data. You can only point to dishonest Heritage Foundation graphs which I've already debunked in the Politics section. The balance of evidence completely vindicates Keynesianism and refutes your austerity approach.



SEN. TOOMEY: I know it is your view that the recent huge increase in spending and the corresponding big deficits have generated more economic growth and more job creation that we would have had in the absence of those things. But surely you'd agree, that that essentially asks for a comparison to a counterfactual, and as such, it's completely impossible to prove?

DR. DOUGLAS ELMENDORF, director of the CBO: Yes, that's right, senator.


As for your testimony, first of all the CBO director says he believes according to the evidence that the stimulus worked and more stimulus is needed so case basically closed. But you're taken in by a deceptive and meaningless question by the radical extremist Toomey. Let me illustrate how useless this question by posing another.

SEN TOOMEY: I know it is your view that the recent failure to drop atomic weapons on Chicago has saved millions of lives that would have been lost if we had dropped nuclear bombs on the city. But surely you'd agree, that that essentially asks for a comparison to a counterfactual, and as such, it's completely impossible to prove?

DR. DOUGLAS ELMENDORF, director of the CBO: Yes, that's right, senator.

You see this? Every counterfactual is impossible to prove! And since time only appears to go in one direction we can't go back to do experiments to see what would have happened. But this does not mean we have no idea how the world works because we can track different policies across locations and over time. And the evidence from all this research says, as the CBO director says, the stimulus worked and we need more.



TOOMEY: The last point I'd just like to ask is, I think it's your view but I like to ask, is it your view that if we were to pursue revenue neutral tax reform, that would have the effect of broadening the base upon which taxes are applied and lowering marginal rates, that it is true both with respect to such corporate reform or individual reform that that would have a pro-growth effect on the economy, which of course would in turn generates more income for the government?

ELMENDORF: Yes, that's right. Again, the amount would depend on the specifics of the proposal.

Of course you remain unconvinced, on both spending and lowering tax rates but now at least you have the facts, and can completely indulge in your own economic fairy tales. Enjoy.


This is basically a red herring. I've never said that tax-cuts are not stimulative, just that they're far less stimulative than fiscal policy and hence a waste of money. It's up to you to defend why you think tax cuts are stimulative but fiscal policy is not, because all the evidence and the experts contradict that claim. In a previous post in this thread I already outlined the case for infrastructure spending now.

You haven't provided a single shred of evidence for your point of view, just misdirection, character assassination and wildly incorrect claims. Btw I'm still waiting for all those examples of when Krugman was "flat out wrong." But I'm not holding my breath.

[asic600]

If there's one thing we can all agree on...if we hadn't wasted $1 Trillion in Iraq (thanks Bush supporters you know who you were), we would probably be $1 Trillion (+interest) wealthier as a nation. We would probably also be working on getting to Mars, building the fastest supercolliders and the world's fastest computer instead. We're way behind in education and it's starting to show on our trajectory to 2nd world status (thanks crappy educational system, bad parents, rap music and restrictions on smart immigrants from scaaary countries coming here).

[cockgobbler]

Serious question from a non Amrerican:

Is there a chance the Democrats will put someone up against Obama for the Dem nomination?

There was a report on a poll i heard on the local news here in Toronto Canada that Hilary Clinton would destroy any republican candidate by something like 20 points.

[cockgobbler]

If there's one thing we can all agree on...if we hadn't wasted $1 Trillion in Iraq (thanks Bush supporters you know who you were), we would probably be $1 Trillion (+interest) wealthier as a nation. We would probably also be working on getting to Mars, building the fastest supercolliders and the world's fastest computer instead. We're way behind in education and it's starting to show on our trajectory to 2nd world status (thanks crappy educational system, bad parents, rap music and restrictions on smart immigrants from scaaary countries coming here).

I'm a conservative voter (granted Conservative in Canada is somewhat different than the US, here in Canada the Conservative Prime Minister has no intrest in opening the gay marriage or abortion (both legal) debates)) but from the numbers I've seen Obama has added to the debt in 3 1/2 years as much as Bush added in 8 years.

Am I wrong?

[robertlouis]

Again, repsecting your opinion, I really think that if someone killed a member of my family I would want to be the one to flip the switch.

If that situation ever actually materalized would my opinion differ?

I can honestly say I don'r know for sure, but I THINK not.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I only hope that if the event actually occurred, you would refuse.

[robertlouis]

Serious question from a non Amrerican:

Is there a chance the Democrats will put someone up against Obama for the Dem nomination?

There was a report on a poll i heard on the local news here in Toronto Canada that Hilary Clinton would destroy any republican candidate by something like 20 points.

Just wait to see what the Republican hate machine would do to a Hillary candidacy. Although Hillary against Bachmann would be fun...

[cockgobbler]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I only hope that if the event actually occurred, you would refuse.

Well, it's a moot point anyway since Canada doesn't have the death peanality.:)

Good repsectful healthy debate though.:Bowdown:

Respect is something that is unfortunately missing in political debate on both sides of the border.

[cockgobbler]

Just wait to see what the Republican hate machine would do to a Hillary candidacy. Although Hillary against Bachmann would be fun...

CAT FIGHT!!!!!!! :jerkoff

[cockgobbler]

CAT FIGHT!!!!!!! :jerkoff

I actually like Hilary.

Strong women are sexy.

[onmyknees]

Last week's Have I Got News For You, a topical news quiz show in the UK, featured a Tory MP who ridiculed the protesters in London for buying coffee in Starbucks and thereby shoring up the capitalist system. She was slammed by all of the other panelists in turn. It's patently ridiculous. We all live, for better or worse, in capitalist societies, where there are no alternatives or where co-operatives have been pushed to the margins.

Maybe the protesters in New York should be burning Teabaggers to keep warm.....

See...there ya go again. Outta your league. Stick to the never ending complimentary responses to the girls...it keeps threads going, and they seem to like it, ( yawn) and you're simply better at it. And for better or worse...we have to go with what we're better at. :dancing:

[robertlouis]

Well, it's a moot point anyway since Canada doesn't have the death peanality.:)

Good repsectful healthy debate though.:Bowdown:

Thanks. I was born and brought up in Glasgow, where wimps don't prosper, so I can handle myself in a fight ok, but I have never had any interest in firearms, and I have always opposed the death penalty.

I suspect that once it's been abolished, very few countries have the real practical appetite to re-establish it. I'm not talking about tabloid frenzies and rabid right-wingers, but governments and those authorities charged with organising it. We got rid of it in the mid-1960s. It won't be coming back.

[BluegrassCat]

I'm a conservative voter (granted Conservative in Canada is somewhat different than the US, here in Canada the Conservative Prime Minister has no intrest in opening the gay marriage or abortion (both legal) debates)) but from the numbers I've seen Obama has added to the debt in 3 1/2 years as much as Bush added in 8 years.

Am I wrong?

If you go by debt by year this is true, if you go by debt from policy it isn't.

[robertlouis]

See...there ya go again. Outta your league. Stick to the never ending complimentary responses to the girls...it keeps threads going, and they seem to like it, ( yawn) and you're simply better at it. And for better or worse...we have to go with what we're better at. :dancing:

Aww, and I thought we were getting on so well, omk. LOL.

So protest is only legitimate where there's no compromise?

So how come teabaggers still pay taxes and use services provided by social programmes, oh, and collect their welfare checks too? The argument cuts both ways, you know.

By the way, when you find what you're good at, please let us all know...... :dancing:

[onmyknees]

Dear God, does your intellectual dishonesty know no bounds??? You claim you want to deal in facts, please start, I've been waiting. The entire economics profession has countless charts, graphs and models that all point to the effectiveness of the stimulus and the need for more. Here's one based on the model by conservative Douglas Holtz-Eakin:
http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i269/Megworen/holtz_eakin2.png

Where's your evidence? If what you claim is so obviously true it would show up in the data. You can only point to dishonest Heritage Foundation graphs which I've already debunked in the Politics section. The balance of evidence completely vindicates Keynesianism and refutes your austerity approach.



As for your testimony, first of all the CBO director says he believes according to the evidence that the stimulus worked and more stimulus is needed so case basically closed. But you're taken in by a deceptive and meaningless question by the radical extremist Toomey. Let me illustrate how useless this question by posing another.

SEN TOOMEY: I know it is your view that the recent failure to drop atomic weapons on Chicago has saved millions of lives that would have been lost if we had dropped nuclear bombs on the city. But surely you'd agree, that that essentially asks for a comparison to a counterfactual, and as such, it's completely impossible to prove?

DR. DOUGLAS ELMENDORF, director of the CBO: Yes, that's right, senator.

You see this? Every counterfactual is impossible to prove! And since time only appears to go in one direction we can't go back to do experiments to see what would have happened. But this does not mean we have no idea how the world works because we can track different policies across locations and over time. And the evidence from all this research says, as the CBO director says, the stimulus worked and we need more.



This is basically a red herring. I've never said that tax-cuts are not stimulative, just that they're far less stimulative than fiscal policy and hence a waste of money. It's up to you to defend why you think tax cuts are stimulative but fiscal policy is not, because all the evidence and the experts contradict that claim. In a previous post in this thread I already outlined the case for infrastructure spending now.

You haven't provided a single shred of evidence for your point of view, just misdirection, character assassination and wildly incorrect claims. Btw I'm still waiting for all those examples of when Krugman was "flat out wrong." But I'm not holding my breath.

At some point I just have to throw down and say you're a fool...

that's not a character assassination, just an informed opinion. Both Houses and both parties of Congress use the CBO and its thousands of staff accountants . Their reputation and integrity are beyond reproach, yet under oath when their director cannot provide proof the stimulus actually worked, in fact agrees there is no proof...only supposition..... Blue Grass Cat comes up with some chart that can. He's a miracle man. A liberal secret weapon. Somebody get this man a job in Washington.
Yesterday you dismissed the former Chairman of the Senate finance committe, today the CBO director....tomorrow? You believe what you wanna believe.....Ignorance is Bliss, and thankfully your position is irrelevant, because they'll be no more spending...it didn't pass the Senate, won't pass the House, and it's DOA.

[Silcc69]

Somebody seems to be getting a agitated now.

[MdR Dave]

So how come teabaggers still pay taxes and use services provided by social programmes, oh, and collect their welfare checks too? The argument cuts both ways, you know.

By the way, when you find what you're good at, please let us all know...... :dancing:

That's our RL!

Good show- but you'll never get anywhere with fact and insight- better to make blanket statements with an air of authority, regardless of veracity- you know, fire with fire?

[BluegrassCat]

At some point I just have to throw down and say you're a fool...

that's not a character assassination, just an informed opinion. Both Houses and both parties of Congress use the CBO and its thousands of staff accountants . Their reputation and integrity are beyond reproach, yet under oath when their director cannot provide proof the stimulus actually worked, in fact agrees there is no proof...only supposition..... Blue Grass Cat comes up with some chart that can. He's a miracle man. A liberal secret weapon. Somebody get this man a job in Washington.
Yesterday you dismissed the former Chairman of the Senate finance committe, today the CBO director....tomorrow? You believe what you wanna believe.....Ignorance is Bliss, and thankfully your position is irrelevant, because they'll be no more spending...it didn't pass the Senate, won't pass the House, and it's DOA.

Another post entirely free of evidence, but chock full of invective; a perfect example of the modern conservative movement.
I didn't dismiss the CBO director, I agreed with his assessment that the stimulus worked and more stimulus is needed. If you disagree with that then YOU'RE dismissing him. He simply acknowledged what anyone who's taken basic science or statistics understands: you can't prove any counterfactual. And in the same breath you have the chutzpah (or just cluelessness) to herald his counterfactual assertion about cutting corporate tax rates being stimulative. You don't have a leg to stand on here, so hop on home.

If omk is a parody profile, it's a work of genius. If not, it's just embarrassing.

[onmyknees]

Look...some people are ideologues, some are pragmatists...you're the former, and so is Obama. No matter what the cost....you and he stay tied to your failed assertions and ideology. Unlike Clinton....In the wake of a resounding, historical rebuke in the mid term elections, it phased him not....he did not readjust, adapt, or amend, just hardened his unpopular, ineffective positions. So why could anyone expect you to change or reconsider? But you stay with that belief...if nothing else you're determined. Stay with the ship Captain...even as it descends to the ocean floor . It's entirely probable that even if he did win re-election, and after 8 years and a country crippled in debt and unemployment, bitterly divided between race and class, you'd still be showing us your charts and graphs and telling us not to believe our lying eyes...what a success it's really been.

[BluegrassCat]

Look...some people are ideologues, some are pragmatists...you're the former, and so is Obama. No matter what the cost....you and he stay tied to your failed assertions and ideology. Unlike Clinton....In the wake of a resounding, historical rebuke in the mid term elections, it phased him not....he did not readjust, adapt, or amend, just hardened his unpopular, ineffective positions. So why could anyone expect you to change or reconsider? But you stay with that belief...if nothing else you're determined. Stay with the ship Captain...even as it descends to the ocean floor . It's entirely probable that even if he did win re-election, and after 8 years and a country crippled in debt and unemployment, bitterly divided between race and class, you'd still be showing us your charts and graphs and telling us not to believe our lying eyes...what a success it's really been.

It's almost become a truism on here that whatever you accuse others of is actually a perfect description of yourself and this one is spot on. Look, I'm going by the data, by what people who study this say, and you're going by your white-knuckle ideology of hatred. You're trapped in a echo chamber of propaganda. I give you evidence for my (and all economists') point of view and you spew insults. I ask for examples for your claims and you change the subject. I make an argument and you plug your ears, stomp your feet and throw a tantrum. You have NOTHING to say except what Limbaugh told you to say. You didn't come by your opinions honestly on your own; that's why you can't back any of it up. You lose your shirt every time you step into a political thread.

[hard4janira]

To say that "economists agree with me" (and therefore I am right) is silly. Anybody can find and economist and/or a study that validates their political point of view. Economists are political animals just like everybody else.

Somebody once said that if you took all of the economists in the world and stacked them from head to toe you would never reach a concensus...How true. I listen to Tom Keene every day and there is a never ending stream of financial experts and nobel prize winning economists who couldn't agree less on the problems or the symptoms of the economic mess we are in right now.

As for me personally, the more I read about everything that is going on the less I am inclined to support the Keynesian approach. We tried it during the great depression and it didn't work. Japan tried it in the 90's and it didn't work (and they are very vocal about the fact that it didn't work and that all they did was perpetuate 'zombie banks' it what amounted to lost decade). We are doing it again this time around and, as we all know, it isn't working. Krugman has been confronted with Japan before and his only retort is that they didn't spend enough... (which by the way, is the exact same thing that he is saying now).

So that begs the question: If all of this government 'stimulus' isn't working (as well as other things like TARP and numerous other bailouts) why do we keep doing them every time there is a panic? (This same question can be asked of Japan too, not just America). I think the answer is really simple actually: The POLITICAL cost of not doing anything is simply unacceptable for those in power. They have to try and do SOMETHING right? Or do they?...

Although I am not in any particular 'camp' (i.e. monetarist, Keynesian, Austrian) I am starting to believe that the Austrian school is really onto something. Stimulus is wasteful because it doesn't create permanent jobs and it doesn't finance projects for which there is a demand (necessarily). Further, it adds to debt either through borrowing or printing of money (which leads to inflation). We've had about a trillion and a half dollar round of stimulus under Obama and unemployment hasn't budged. That's a bad, bad sign. I'm still trying to figure out how a freshly paved road is going to increase IBM's bottom line, or Macy's for that matter.

Many economists (even the monetarists gasp!) would have you beleive that the entire world would have melted down like a great nuclear reactor if we didn't bail out the banks. But NONE of them can tell you exactly what WOULD have happened, other than it would have been a systemic doomesday scenario. I am mis-trustful of them and I am still waiting for some explanation of what would have happened if we didn't pass TARP. Personally, I think the shadow banks should have gone through bankruptcy (as well as AIG). I'm not sure that we've saved anything with all of these bailouts. We've re-capitalized the banks but guess what...they aren't lending! Plus we have inflation to deal with and a debt problem that is getting worse and worse..

The question that should probably be asked is this: Is it better to suffer through a horrible depression that lasts 3 or 4 years or a very bad recession that lasts 10-15 years? I think that is what we are in for. We are in for a lost decade just like Japan in the 90's (but worse). We are already 4 years into this thing and housing still hasn't hit a bottom. Make no mistake, there is NO light at the end of the tunnel here.

[BluegrassCat]

A recent Bloomberg survey of economists and financial institutions found 85% (29/34) predicted Obama's new jobs bill would stimulate job growth and GDP.

To say that unemployment hasn't budged and that inflation is a current problem is not only silly but flatly wrong.

[Stavros]

To say that "economists agree with me" (and therefore I am right) is silly. Anybody can find and economist and/or a study that validates their political point of view. Economists are political animals just like everybody else.

Somebody once said that if you took all of the economists in the world and stacked them from head to toe you would never reach a concensus...How true. I listen to Tom Keene every day and there is a never ending stream of financial experts and nobel prize winning economists who couldn't agree less on the problems or the symptoms of the economic mess we are in right now.

As for me personally, the more I read about everything that is going on the less I am inclined to support the Keynesian approach. We tried it during the great depression and it didn't work. Japan tried it in the 90's and it didn't work (and they are very vocal about the fact that it didn't work and that all they did was perpetuate 'zombie banks' it what amounted to lost decade). We are doing it again this time around and, as we all know, it isn't working. Krugman has been confronted with Japan before and his only retort is that they didn't spend enough... (which by the way, is the exact same thing that he is saying now).

So that begs the question: If all of this government 'stimulus' isn't working (as well as other things like TARP and numerous other bailouts) why do we keep doing them every time there is a panic? (This same question can be asked of Japan too, not just America). I think the answer is really simple actually: The POLITICAL cost of not doing anything is simply unacceptable for those in power. They have to try and do SOMETHING right? Or do they?...

Although I am not in any particular 'camp' (i.e. monetarist, Keynesian, Austrian) I am starting to believe that the Austrian school is really onto something. Stimulus is wasteful because it doesn't create permanent jobs and it doesn't finance projects for which there is a demand (necessarily). Further, it adds to debt either through borrowing or printing of money (which leads to inflation). We've had about a trillion and a half dollar round of stimulus under Obama and unemployment hasn't budged. That's a bad, bad sign. I'm still trying to figure out how a freshly paved road is going to increase IBM's bottom line, or Macy's for that matter.

Many economists (even the monetarists gasp!) would have you beleive that the entire world would have melted down like a great nuclear reactor if we didn't bail out the banks. But NONE of them can tell you exactly what WOULD have happened, other than it would have been a systemic doomesday scenario. I am mis-trustful of them and I am still waiting for some explanation of what would have happened if we didn't pass TARP. Personally, I think the shadow banks should have gone through bankruptcy (as well as AIG). I'm not sure that we've saved anything with all of these bailouts. We've re-capitalized the banks but guess what...they aren't lending! Plus we have inflation to deal with and a debt problem that is getting worse and worse..

The question that should probably be asked is this: Is it better to suffer through a horrible depression that lasts 3 or 4 years or a very bad recession that lasts 10-15 years? I think that is what we are in for. We are in for a lost decade just like Japan in the 90's (but worse). We are already 4 years into this thing and housing still hasn't hit a bottom. Make no mistake, there is NO light at the end of the tunnel here.


I think it was Hippifried in Politics & Religion a while ago who argued we are going round in circles because economic theory hasn't changed since the 19th century -Keynes was offering a temporary solution to mass unemployment, not an alternative economic system; the Austrian school, to the extent that it was part of Friedman's monetarist theory and the de-regulation fetish that gripped the Thatcher-Reagan perspective hasn't worked either -one of the reasons we are in this mess is that de-regulation enabled high-flying capitalist whizz kids to invent all sorts of financial products that started out as ingenious ways of making money, but ended up being tacked on to real assets, like people's homes: and our government's didn't seem to know what was going on in the markets. If its true then they were in dereliction of their duty; if they did know and did nothing about it, ditto.

I think that where there was no separation of a bank's tangible assets -its customers accounts -and its 'casino' operations, ie its investment branch, then a bank collapse would have immediately impoverished millions of people -even the Bush administration could not have coped with that. TARP was a bandage and it stopped the bleeding, but the wound is a deep one, and as you suggest we are in for a grim decade at least, but so far I have yet to see any economic suggestions -other than the creation of jobs-that will change things.

[hard4janira]

I think it was Hippifried in Politics & Religion a while ago who argued we are going round in circles because economic theory hasn't changed since the 19th century -Keynes was offering a temporary solution to mass unemployment, not an alternative economic system; the Austrian school, to the extent that it was part of Friedman's monetarist theory and the de-regulation fetish that gripped the Thatcher-Reagan perspective hasn't worked either -one of the reasons we are in this mess is that de-regulation enabled high-flying capitalist whizz kids to invent all sorts of financial products that started out as ingenious ways of making money, but ended up being tacked on to real assets, like people's homes: and our government's didn't seem to know what was going on in the markets. If its true then they were in dereliction of their duty; if they did know and did nothing about it, ditto.

I think that where there was no separation of a bank's tangible assets -its customers accounts -and its 'casino' operations, ie its investment branch, then a bank collapse would have immediately impoverished millions of people -even the Bush administration could not have coped with that. TARP was a bandage and it stopped the bleeding, but the wound is a deep one, and as you suggest we are in for a grim decade at least, but so far I have yet to see any economic suggestions -other than the creation of jobs-that will change things.

Personally, I am not against de-regulation. De-regulation gets a bad rap most of the time. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any rules: I'm just saying that more and more regulation created by larger and larger bureaucracies is not the answer. Take the SEC for example; They were basically led by the nose do the doorstep of Bernie Maddoff and they STILL couldn't catch the guy. That's gross incpompetance and ineptitude from a government agency that failed to perform it's basic function. To think that if we had all these regulations and agencies in place to monitor them is naive - I KNOW that this would never work.

So what about the swaps then, or the crazy financial instruments that these Wall Street 'wiz-kids' came up with? On the surface, I am not against them in theory. What I am against is the lack of transparency into these instruments which is what we had. If AIG wants to go out and over-leverage 500 times in swaps against Lehman brothers - I say let them do it: HOWEVER, these swaps should be on the books for all to see, especially the shareholders. Do you honestly think that shareholders would stick around and keep money in a company that takes such dangerous risks? The stock price of AIG (or any other company) would be punished as a result and the company would hesitate to engage in such risky behavior. In this sense, the market is self-regulating if the proper parties have all of the requisite information. So here is where we probably agree: We need more/stronger regulation to make sure that people who have a stake in a company (bondhoders/shareholders) have FULL visibility into a companies financials.

Now, a lot of companies were not forthright about thier holdings and THIS IS CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. Bear Stearns, for example, were sitting on a couple of Hedge Funds (the Enhanced Leverage Fund and I can't remember the name of the other one...) When these two funds collapsed (and subsequently brought down the Wall Street giant) it became clear that the fund managers misguided (or outright lied) to the investors about the quality of the assets in these funds. The fund managers were tried and acquited - to this day I do not know how.... but it is this kind of nonsense that makes me want to join the OWS protesters. These fuckers should have spent some time in jail, that's all I'm saying.

I also think that there was shady (if not criminal) behavior by the credit rating agencies who by all accounts knew that they were rating B stuff AAA. I've always said and I still say that criminal behavior should be punished. If you are an OWS protester and you are in the park because the rating agencies and investment banks were not held accountable for these shennanigans then I am with you 100%. I do believe 100% that there was some criminal behavior here that has gone unpunished and it is not fair to the American people.

On the other hand, I believe that a lot of what the mortage companies and investemen banks did was simpy bad business (not criminal) and bad business should GO BANKRUPT. Bankruptcy doesn't mean they go away, it simply means that the stakeholders take their loses (privatized losses), management gets canned, and a stronger company emerges. This sense of 'too big to fail' and socialized losses where the taxpayer takes on the burden of bad business decisions is simply NOT CAPITALISM. By the way, I'd like to make it VERY CLEAR that this Wall Street vs. Main Street business is simply bullshit. Wall Street IS main street. How many jobs were lost when Lehman when under? 26,000. That's TWENTY SIX THOUSAND. You think those were all fat-cats driving Bently's? Nope, that included mail clerks, secretaries, security guards - a whole shitload of regular joes lost jobs. And what about GM? How come the OWS protesters aren't occupying Deerborn, MI? GM is seen as 'main-street', but it's just another example of crony capitalism at it's absolute worst. GM is a company that has been against the ropes for years. Even before the collapse in 2008, GM had to go to the Federal Government for loans at reduced interest rates because it couldn't get them in the open market. This is not capitalism. The taxpayer has been bailing out the auto-makers for YEARS and it is wrong. These companies should have gone through bankrupcty years ago. They would be much stronger companies now. The reason that Washington bails out the auto-makers is because of the unions. The unions are very powerful and they provide a lot of campaign finance money to the louts in DC. So the taxpayer continues to subsidize the losses in Michigan for political reasons: It is really a shame and a disgrace. The OWS protesters have every right to be up there in Michigan as well.

Lastly (as I ramble on here), the Federal goverment was complicit in the housing bubble, and we probably wouldn't be in the mess at all if these assholes weren't involved in shit they have no business in. Fannie and Freddie are perfect examples of government that is completley out of control. Two GSE's that privatize gains and socialize losses via government gurantees. Government encouraged poor lending (even mandating it in some cases via the CRA and threats of lawsuits from the regional Federal Reserve banks). The GSE's DIRECTLY ENCOURAGED BAD LENDING PRACTICES AND POOR UNDERWRITING STANDARDS, and politicians were more than happy to be complicit with these shennanigans as they took thousands upon thousands of dollars to the bank in the form of campaign contributiosn (see Rahm Emmanuel). It's a disgrace and a shame to see these politicians running around blaming capitalism and the banks for the housing bubble when they are the most culpable of all. Thomas Sewell wrote a terrific little book 'The Housing Boom and Bust' which (admittedly) takes an informative albeit conservative look at the reasons behind the housing boom/bust. You can read it in half a day and I reccommend it to anybody who would like a lay-person's read on what happenned.

Fuck it, that's all for now I need coffee.....lol

[hard4janira]

A recent Bloomberg survey of economists and financial institutions found 85% (29/34) predicted Obama's new jobs bill would stimulate job growth and GDP.

To say that unemployment hasn't budged and that inflation is a current problem is not only silly but flatly wrong.

What the economists like is the social security tax-cut part of the plan. Gee, imagine that, tax cuts to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Wow, who would have ever thought of that!

I have no doubt that directly injecting 'stimulus' into the ecomomy will contribute to the GDP, for a while. But at what cost? The first round of stimulus certianly hasn't increased GDP to the point of offsetting the debt burden created by borrowing/printing that took place in order to inject it into the economy. Funny side note here: Obama is big on fixing roads and bridges, but as Rand Paul pointed out, the entire annual road/highway budget of Kentucky is less that what Obama threw down the toilet at Solyndra.... You really have to wonder where Obama's priorities lie....


And can you say inflation isn't a problem? Why don't you ask people who are living paycheck to paycheck who have to deal with the increased cost of food and energy. Even Krugman was surprised by what he saw back in may (note the first paragraph).

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/inflation-notes/

Oh, and you REALLY know that Obama is flat out of ideas when he allows people to sue employers if they think they were discriminated against (i.e. not hired0 because they were unemployed. What a dope. As if Obama needed to alienate business any more than he already has.... Now they live in fear of being sued because they aren't hiring uneployed people.... I guess that's one way to try and get the unemployement numbers down.

[Stavros]

Hard4Janira: a compelling argument: and I agree with you, that the quality of the regulatory process is the key to the oversight the private sector should be submitted to, and you provide good examples why this should be so, and where and how it failed.

I also understand the reasoning you provide for culpability of banks and hedge funds for their own risks, and for the government-sponsored laxity in the creation of popular but financially disastrous mortgages that had been going on for years and was unsustainable.

However, if you are in the White House or Downing St and you are told that, not 26,000 but 2 million six hundred thousand people will lose their jobs this weekend because of all those shabby dealings and weird financial instruments, and incompetent regulatory agencies run by the people you put there -do you say Let the Markets Decide? Or, We need a rescue plan...both carry risks, but the risk of political suicide is not in most politicians In Tray.

The Greek government created 800,000 jobs in the last ten years or so, most if not all civil servants; many are/were grace and favour jobs for relatives, party members, and so on. In effect, Greece actually has defaulted, it wanted a prosperity it could not make on its own, so it borrowed itself into a paradise of credit, only to discover that heaven on earth is not possible.

There was talk of BP going bankrupt as a consequences of the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, and, because its revenues account for £1 in every £7 of most pensions in the UK it is said to be Too Big To Fail -but it can, and if it did, what would happen? Its assets would be bought up by Shell, Exxon, Conoco, Chevron and Total who would then have to re-structure their own portfolios for competition reasons and so on: but it can be done. In one sense, then, nobody is Too Big To Fail.

But just as the story is not over yet, if you are saying that we have to in effect purge the capitalist economies of the credit-soaked parasites, are you prepared to deal with its political as well as its economic consequences? There are no simple or easy answers to this, but it is clearly the most important issue of the day.

[BluegrassCat]

And can you say inflation isn't a problem? Why don't you ask people who are living paycheck to paycheck who have to deal with the increased cost of food and energy. Even Krugman was surprised by what he saw back in may (note the first paragraph).

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/inflation-notes/



And you say inflation is a problem? Go ahead and ask those people and they'll tell you it's because they're un or under-employed, not because of inflation. See what Krugam said this month.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/19/inflation-still-not-exploding/

And if you're interested in reading an objective and thorough discussion of the lead up to the crisis of 08 rather than right wing talking points try "All the Devils are Here" by McLean & Nocera.

[Ben]

Michael Moore on Anderson Cooper Live from Occupy Oakland (10/28/11) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oncRpIAPyIc)

[hard4janira]

I also understand the reasoning you provide for culpability of banks and hedge funds for their own risks, and for the government-sponsored laxity in the creation of popular but financially disastrous mortgages that had been going on for years and was unsustainable.

Add to that the Federal Reserve, who by keeping interest rates artificially low for nearly a decade made credit available to people who simply would not have access to that capital otherwise. The Federal reserve (along with CMA and the GSE's) contributed massively to the housing bubble that simply had to burst.


However, if you are in the White House or Downing St and you are told that, not 26,000 but 2 million six hundred thousand people will lose their jobs this weekend because of all those shabby dealings and weird financial instruments, and incompetent regulatory agencies run by the people you put there -do you say Let the Markets Decide? Or, We need a rescue plan...both carry risks, but the risk of political suicide is not in most politicians In Tray.

I agree 100% and I suggested as much in my first post I think. The POLITICAL cost of not doing anything (or seemingly not doing anything) is simply too much to bear. You are right, it's probably political suicide. Remeber though, TARP failed to pass congress the first time around. Only after Bernanke and Paulson put the fear of financial holocaust into both parties did they rally enough support to get it passed with the second effort.


The Greek government created 800,000 jobs in the last ten years or so, most if not all civil servants; many are/were grace and favour jobs for relatives, party members, and so on. In effect, Greece actually has defaulted, it wanted a prosperity it could not make on its own, so it borrowed itself into a paradise of credit, only to discover that heaven on earth is not possible.

Ergo austerity measures. And it isn't just Greece. It's Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and now Italy (which really has a lot of folks worried). The big quesiton over the next couple of weeks is if Germany and Frace are going to suck the big one and re-capitalize the banks. The jury is still out on that.... I hope they don't. That will be the end of the Euro... These bankrupt countries are REALLY going to have to deal with austerity measurs then... Same thing will be coming to the US one day.


There was talk of BP going bankrupt as a consequences of the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, and, because its revenues account for £1 in every £7 of most pensions in the UK it is said to be Too Big To Fail -but it can, and if it did, what would happen? Its assets would be bought up by Shell, Exxon, Conoco, Chevron and Total who would then have to re-structure their own portfolios for competition reasons and so on: but it can be done. In one sense, then, nobody is Too Big To Fail.

While I think the BP should be held 100% accountable for the clean-up I do think that it was embarrassing that the Obama administration 'shook down' BP for political points. The environmental impact of the spill is one of the greatest overblown stories in history. Nobody is even talking about it anymore and I was the the Gulf in August and enjoyed lovely, beautiful beaches. I agree that nobody is 'too big to fail' - but we should find a way to remove that phrase from our vocabulary completely. Any and all businesses should go through bankruptcy if necessary. No company in America (can't speak for the world) should be 'too big for bankruptcy'. If they are, you can bet your bottom dollar that there is crony capitalism at work.


But just as the story is not over yet, if you are saying that we have to in effect purge the capitalist economies of the credit-soaked parasites, are you prepared to deal with its political as well as its economic consequences? There are no simple or easy answers to this, but it is clearly the most important issue of the day.

Well, I'm saying this:

1) Any company that SHOULD go bankrupt needs to go through bankruptcy, and government shouldn't stand in the way of that happening. I don't care if you are an investment bank, an auto manufacturer, or a cupcake bakery that employs 5 people. Bad business decisions MUST be punished by the market.

2) Profits AND losses should both be privatized. No more Federal 'guarantees' of mortgages, student loans, bank accounts, or any other such nonsense. It creates a HUGE moral hazzard that leads us directly into the kinds of messes that we have now

3) If somebody commits a crime then punish them swiftly and severely. We treat white collar criminals with kid-gloves and it's wrong. There are so many shennanigans going on in these investment banks that it really gives captialism a black eye. You have to enforce the laws of the land and you have to be efficient in doing so. I honestly think that so many people get away with these crimes because they don't fear getting caught or what would happen if they actually do get caught.

4) Obey the rule of law. We have bankruptcy rules in place already. Who in the hell does Obama think he is telling the bondholders at GM to go stuff themselves while he bails out the union employees? I really regret that the Supreme Court rejected the bondholders case in this instance (they simply didn't have enough time to put forth a proper case). Also, a mortgage is a legal CONTRACT between two parties. How does the government justify telling a judge that he can arbitrarily reduce the amount of principal on a loan in the hopes that the borrower doesn't go under? That is an EXTREME violation of the rule of law. If I hold the title to that property I'm getting screwed big time. Why would I ever loan money again to anybody to buy anything If I fear the government will step in and arbitrarilty modify the terms of my contract without any legal precedence whatsoever? People who borrowed more than they can afford need to go through bankruptcy (or forclosure) just like the investment banks. It seems harsh and unkind, but honestly this is the ONLY fair way for the market to work. The sooner we do this, the sooner the market acutally finds a bottom and the sooner the 'bad assets' get off the books of these goddamn banks.

[Stavros]

hard4janira:
I understand your frustration and your belief that markets should be allowed to regulate themselves, but a lot of contemporary politics is derived from the experience of the 1930s when it was felt that the social consequences of failure were too great, that the depression was part of the rise of fascism and devastating world war, and that capitalism when it gets sick does not always have a cure for the patient.

It may be that the 1890 Sherman Act was the first attempt by politicians to use the law to intervene in markets, to break up monopolies that were perceived to prevent the 'little guy' from entering the market at all: but if there is a natural tendency in free markets to create monopolies, why should the state intervene? Rockefeller's Standard empire was broken up in 1911, but not the Microsoft empire; was the market involved in either of those decisions?

A powerful factor has been the growth of the modern state -the increase in intervention which followed the depression was politically motivated, but even though both Reagan and Thatcher tried to roll back the state from the economy, they could only do it it in part -because just in defence procurement alone, the US Government is one of the biggest sources of business in the USA; in all modern states now, the government is a regulator, and a producer, and a consumer -in a very real sense you cannot detach government, or the state from the economy -there can be no 'free markets', there can be no tax free rides on the gravy train.

Where I think you hit an exposed nerve, it is in the quality of institutions -the application of existing laws on contracts without political interference, and the quality of advice and the application of law by regulatory agencies. It beggars belief that the Bank of England or the UK Treasury had no staff whose monitoring of markets and whose specialist knowledge of financial isntruments could not follow and analyse the movements of capital over two or three decades and work out what was happening by 2008-this is what we pay good money for, and historically the Treasury was the smallest dept of government but had the brightest minds (!). Either that, or the papers being written for Gordon Brown were dumped in the bin just as Blair dumped expert advice on Iraq from the Foreign Office in the bin -I don't know about the Treasury but the latter is true. But if we are paying experts £75,000 a year for advice the politicians don't want to hear, why bother paying for it at all?

And what about inter-state unions? We used to have the Hanseatic League, and there was the Communist International, and now the European Union -some English Tories (and the Little Englanders in the Labour Party like Tony Benn) did not object to joining a common market but think the European Union is too many political steps too far, even though a cursory knowledge of the Treaty of Rome should have alerted them to its origins and ambitions. The enlargement of the Union is made on political rather than economic grounds -just as the decision to let Greece into the Euro was political and a mistake. But can the Euro survive if the reality is that not just Greece, but Ireland, Spain and Portugal -conceivably even Italy- are thrown out of it? It even begs the question in an age of globalisation, why should the European Union continue to exist at all, when it ring-fences its economies to provide a competitive advantage on world markets at the expense of small states in Africa, Asia and Latin America? Same with the British Commonwealth that offers preferential terms to its member states -?

I feel that the problem is that a) the modern state is now too embedded in capitalist economies for the operation of markets to be free of political interference or influence; and b) history shows that left to themselves, markets are too brutal, and the social consequences of failure are believed to be morally unacceptable -and isn't this why we have so many One Way Street protests?

[hard4janira]

hard4janira:
I understand your frustration and your belief that markets should be allowed to regulate themselves, but a lot of contemporary politics is derived from the experience of the 1930s when it was felt that the social consequences of failure were too great, that the depression was part of the rise of fascism and devastating world war, and that capitalism when it gets sick does not always have a cure for the patient.

If you are referring to WW2 then I'd say that rise of facism was more directly tied to the rather draconian Treaty of Versailles rather than a failure of capitalism.

Your point that the Fed's intervention during the great depression due to the social consequenes is spot-on, I agree completley. I also agree that that is really the only reason governments continue to get involved. However, this country has seen it's fair share of financial panics (far more than most people realize) and the goverment did NOT always get involved. Still, capitalsim finds a way to pull through.



It may be that the 1890 Sherman Act was the first attempt by politicians to use the law to intervene in markets, to break up monopolies that were perceived to prevent the 'little guy' from entering the market at all: but if there is a natural tendency in free markets to create monopolies, why should the state intervene? Rockefeller's Standard empire was broken up in 1911, but not the Microsoft empire; was the market involved in either of those decisions?

I do believe that there should be some regulation of the market by the government. Breaking up monopolies is one of them. The government should be concerned with maintaining fee and open markets. Too often however, they are engaged in crony capitalism, assisting business and/or unions rather than simply regulating the playing field.



A powerful factor has been the growth of the modern state -the increase in intervention which followed the depression was politically motivated, but even though both Reagan and Thatcher tried to roll back the state from the economy, they could only do it it in part -because just in defence procurement alone, the US Government is one of the biggest sources of business in the USA; in all modern states now, the government is a regulator, and a producer, and a consumer -in a very real sense you cannot detach government, or the state from the economy -there can be no 'free markets', there can be no tax free rides on the gravy train.

We need to make the markets as free and private as possible. I support a constitutional amendment that balances the budget AND restricts Federal spending to a fixed percentage of GDP (say 18%).


Where I think you hit an exposed nerve, it is in the quality of institutions -the application of existing laws on contracts without political interference, and the quality of advice and the application of law by regulatory agencies. It beggars belief that the Bank of England or the UK Treasury had no staff whose monitoring of markets and whose specialist knowledge of financial isntruments could not follow and analyse the movements of capital over two or three decades and work out what was happening by 2008-this is what we pay good money for, and historically the Treasury was the smallest dept of government but had the brightest minds (!). Either that, or the papers being written for Gordon Brown were dumped in the bin just as Blair dumped expert advice on Iraq from the Foreign Office in the bin -I don't know about the Treasury but the latter is true. But if we are paying experts £75,000 a year for advice the politicians don't want to hear, why bother paying for it at all?

Why can't government do it's job you're asking? Good question. All the more reason to make government smaller - because they constantly prove thier ineptitude time and time again. I don't trust big-goverment to save me or make the marketplace any safer with ever-increasing, bloated bureaucracies. I would be naive to think this is possible.


And what about inter-state unions? We used to have the Hanseatic League, and there was the Communist International, and now the European Union -some English Tories (and the Little Englanders in the Labour Party like Tony Benn) did not object to joining a common market but think the European Union is too many political steps too far, even though a cursory knowledge of the Treaty of Rome should have alerted them to its origins and ambitions. The enlargement of the Union is made on political rather than economic grounds -just as the decision to let Greece into the Euro was political and a mistake. But can the Euro survive if the reality is that not just Greece, but Ireland, Spain and Portugal -conceivably even Italy- are thrown out of it? It even begs the question in an age of globalisation, why should the European Union continue to exist at all, when it ring-fences its economies to provide a competitive advantage on world markets at the expense of small states in Africa, Asia and Latin America? Same with the British Commonwealth that offers preferential terms to its member states -?

Every time I listen to an economist speak about the debt problem in Europe they all say the same thing: German and France have no choice but to recaptialze the banks, trim the debt, and eat a shit sandwich. What buggers me is that none of them seem to understand the political consequences of anything. If I am a German grandfather-clock maker in the black forrest, why should I have to suffer Greek citizin's addiction to debt and refusal to accept necessary austerity measures? Why?


I feel that the problem is that a) the modern state is now too embedded in capitalist economies for the operation of markets to be free of political interference or influence; and b) history shows that left to themselves, markets are too brutal, and the social consequences of failure are believed to be morally unacceptable -and isn't this why we have so many One Way Street protests?

Possibly. I think that markets CAN self-regulate much more than they are allowed to now. I think that government makes matters worse in many cases (particularly with social engineering initiatives such as CMA, FDA, Fannie and Freddie that exacerbate the real-estate bubble). I think that there is too much crony capitalism when governments are involved (with unions as well as large corporations). I think people in goverment are corrupt and self-serving just like people in the private world, therefore I do not believe government has the citizens best interests in mind even if that is what they sell the voters. AND....we haven't even talked about the feasability of central banks and fiat currencies... the damage that it causes and the power it gives corrupt goverments to run up mountains of debt....

[Stavros]

To take some of your points in sequence:

If you are referring to WW2 then I'd say that rise of facism was more directly tied to the rather draconian Treaty of Versailles rather than a failure of capitalism.

When the coalition parties in the 1940s inn the UK began developing the social welfare legislation that the 1945 Labour government put into law, it was a response to the appalling conditions of the inter-war years, and because David Lloyd-George had claimed that soldiers returning from the first World War would have a 'country fit for heroes to live in', sadly typical of Lloyd-George's Liberal bombast. The fear of fascism was based on the perception that in its initial phases in Germany and Italy it was perceived to have been economically successful, hence the danger of its appeal to the working class; it was not a claim that economic depression itself was the cause of war.

I think that markets CAN self-regulate much more than they are allowed to now. I think that government makes matters worse in many cases (particularly with social engineering initiatives such as CMA, FDA, Fannie and Freddie that exacerbate the real-estate bubble). I think that there is too much crony capitalism when governments are involved (with unions as well as large corporations). I think people in goverment are corrupt and self-serving just like people in the private world, therefore I do not believe government has the citizens best interests in mind even if that is what they sell the voters. AND....we haven't even talked about the feasability of central banks and fiat currencies... the damage that it causes and the power it gives corrupt goverments to run up mountains of debt....

The problem with this argument is that it was precisely the reliance on self-regulation that enabled the whizz-kids in finance to develop financial products whose end result was to encourage borrowing at an unsustainable level; the mirage of figures suggested huge flows of capital were lubricating the system when in effect the borrowing was drowning it. As for government, I think it is now too embedded in the state economy for a detachment to be truly effective if it is job creation you want. Efficiency too often gets translated into job losses, when it should really just mean hiring people who are good at their job and don't have to make you jump through eleven hoops to get something done that used to take a phone call or a visit to a local office.

The European Union is actually in danger of breaking up; it isn't just the Euro that is in crisis. I have always supported European integration for political reasons because of the history of war and prejudice, and feel that economically the European states will trade with each other anyway because of geographical propinquity as much as commercial logic. The problem with the European Union is that because it confers advantages on its members, everyone wants to join the club. We have admitted Israel into the European Broadcasting Union, but not Morocco, just as we have given Israel preferential status on a raft of economic activities, but not Syria. To me, Israel is a Middle Eastern not a European country.

And, because of geography and some bogus claim on our intellectual history, modern Greece wanted to be in it, and not only that but was also let in to the Euro even though it did not meet the criteria for membership. Having joined, the succession of venal governments, staffed for the most part at the top by the same families that have ruled Greece since Metaxas, and staffed below by an increasing nomenklatura of friends, and friends of friends, proceeded to pretend it was not just shipping magnates who could be rich in Greece, even though the shippers actually have assets and can run a business.

One of the bizarre results of recent research -by a Greek- that is so telling, shows that there are more owners of the Porsche Cayenne in the town of Larissa than anywhere else in the world. Larissa is in agricultural Thessaly. The research went on: "A couple of years ago, there were more Cayennes circulating in Greece than individuals who declared and paid taxes on an annual income of more than 50,000 euros.”
(story is here:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100012894/fast-cars-and-loose-fiscal-morals-there-are-more-porsches-in-greece-than-taxpayers-declaring-50000-euro-incomes/)

If you ever wondered where all the money went, now you know. The problem is that this recklessness which was motivated by greed and political ambition, threatens to so undermine the Euro that it could undermine the EU itself, because voters who are outraged by the bankers who award themselves for failure, are deeply unhappy about the direction the EU has been going in. That Greece is now painting the Germans as the villain really is outrageous, but characteristic of the denial too many of them live in.

So I am now wondering if 2008 marked the beginning of a major structural shift in global capitalism, not just the confirmation of Asian supremacy in manufacturing, but the break-up of the European Union -possibly even of the UK- and the relegation of North America to second tier status. Any thoughts on this?

[russtafa]

are those ferals still there.Our Aussie cops gave our lowlifes a kick up the arse and told them not to come back because people were complaining about them

[fred41]

are those ferals still there.Our Aussie cops gave our lowlifes a kick up the arse and told them not to come back because people were complaining about them

I think your ferals might be more feral than our ferals. The real ferals (homeless and just released Riker's Island prison inmates) are taking advantage of the free grub, sleeping arrangements, supplies and committing acts of sexual abuse and violence on the protestors.

...this was of course entirely predictable.

[Ben]

Halloween:'Seriously, Protesters?!' - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZUGlUQ0nVs&feature=channel_video_title)

[russtafa]

I think your ferals might be more feral than our ferals. The real ferals (homeless and just released Riker's Island prison inmates) are taking advantage of the free grub, sleeping arrangements, supplies and committing acts of sexual abuse and violence on the protestors.

...this was of course entirely predictable.ours are just rich kids or fully paid up protesters and a few nut cases .Australia does not have the same problems,we are doing very well off China

[hard4janira]

When the coalition parties in the 1940s inn the UK began developing the social welfare legislation that the 1945 Labour government put into law, it was a response to the appalling conditions of the inter-war years, and because David Lloyd-George had claimed that soldiers returning from the first World War would have a 'country fit for heroes to live in', sadly typical of Lloyd-George's Liberal bombast. The fear of fascism was based on the perception that in its initial phases in Germany and Italy it was perceived to have been economically successful, hence the danger of its appeal to the working class; it was not a claim that economic depression itself was the cause of war.

I have to defer here. I am not familiar enough with the history of British politics to comment (or European for that matter).


The problem with this argument is that it was precisely the reliance on self-regulation that enabled the whizz-kids in finance to develop financial products whose end result was to encourage borrowing at an unsustainable level; the mirage of figures suggested huge flows of capital were lubricating the system when in effect the borrowing was drowning it.

Like I said before though, I do not think that the derivatives were transparent enough to the shareholders and the market. If we lacked the oversight to make them transparent to the market then I fully believe that we need to have that in place (so we agree here). I think the Volker rule addresses this somewhat (in an otherwise heaping lump of maggot infested shit called the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform act). To your point, the CDO's cooked up by the whizz kids (not the swaps mind you) encouraged the mortgage brokers lend more and more. However, the ease of access to credit was the fault of the Federal Reserve not Wall Street. I don't see how it is possible to keep intersest rates artificially low for nearly a decate and not expect there to be a bubble of some kind. The GSE's and the Federal government were also co-conspirators in the lowered underwriting standards (no-doc loans) as well. Let me be clear: There is nothing wrong with the CDO instrument itself. It is an wonderful and ingenious idea that is supposed to spread the risk of fixed income assets. Where it fails is when credit rating agencies LIE about the risk that is in them and AAA securities are pawned off to unsuspecting customers with junk in them. If the ratings agencies did thier job this would be a non-issue. (That's not to say that the banks weren't complicit either - they knew what the ratings agencies were up to. In fact, a bank would take its business to another agency if it didn't get the ratings it wanted).

So yes, we need regulation enforced by government. I think we can agree here. Where you and I probably differ is what the government needs to be doing in order to ensure free and open markets. I don't have an issue with CDO's or credit default swaps as financial instruments. I have issues with shareholders not knowing how leveraged a company is in swaps (i.e. AIG's swaps on Lehman). I have issues with CDO's being sold AAA when they are not. I'm not even sure that I think that there should be a rule about how much leverage a company can have. To me, if it is public knowledge how leveraged company is then that risk gets factored into the stock price. Risk-reward.


As for government, I think it is now too embedded in the state economy for a detachment to be truly effective if it is job creation you want. Efficiency too often gets translated into job losses, when it should really just mean hiring people who are good at their job and don't have to make you jump through eleven hoops to get something done that used to take a phone call or a visit to a local office.

Job creation (IMO) is best left to the market. If Uncle Sam get's its boot off the neck of business in this country, then the economy will grow. It's absurd to me to think that the allmighty government has the wisdom to create jobs when and where it deems necessary, and in the appropriate places for which there is actual demand. Many people (myself included) don't even think that the Federal Reserve Bank has enough insight into the economy to be setting the price of money effectively, so I DAMN sure don't believe that goverment knows BEST about when/where to create jobs. Bottom line: Stop putting crushing regulations on business and stop taxing them into oblivion. Stop threating them with lawsuits if they don't do this or that, or hire these people or that. Just take away the chains and let it grow. Government will be better off in the long run because tax revenues as a whole will grow as a result.



The European Union is actually in danger of breaking up; it isn't just the Euro that is in crisis. I have always supported European integration for political reasons because of the history of war and prejudice, and feel that economically the European states will trade with each other anyway because of geographical propinquity as much as commercial logic. The problem with the European Union is that because it confers advantages on its members, everyone wants to join the club. We have admitted Israel into the European Broadcasting Union, but not Morocco, just as we have given Israel preferential status on a raft of economic activities, but not Syria. To me, Israel is a Middle Eastern not a European country.

Maybe I'm wrong but I see the EU and the Euro as one in the same. I've always believed it to be a financial union, nothign more. As the euro goes, so goes the EU. It's really all about the euro I think. I don't know all of the rules as to who you let in or keep out - but if the Euro collapses, what then is the purpose of the EU? Are there trade agreements that are negotiated as a whole with the EU?


So I am now wondering if 2008 marked the beginning of a major structural shift in global capitalism, not just the confirmation of Asian supremacy in manufacturing, but the break-up of the European Union -possibly even of the UK- and the relegation of North America to second tier status. Any thoughts on this?

2008 was the beginning of the downward spiral. We (Europe / America) are all living and experiencing 'the great credit unwinding'. It will go on for many years, because Central Banks are too heavily involved in mucking things up. As far as I am concerned, right now China is the top dog: America is already 2nd tier status.

[BluegrassCat]

Job creation (IMO) is best left to the market. If Uncle Sam get's its boot off the neck of business in this country, then the economy will grow. It's absurd to me to think that the allmighty government has the wisdom to create jobs when and where it deems necessary, and in the appropriate places for which there is actual demand. Many people (myself included) don't even think that the Federal Reserve Bank has enough insight into the economy to be setting the price of money effectively, so I DAMN sure don't believe that goverment knows BEST about when/where to create jobs. Bottom line: Stop putting crushing regulations on business and stop taxing them into oblivion. Stop threating them with lawsuits if they don't do this or that, or hire these people or that. Just take away the chains and let it grow. Government will be better off in the long run because tax revenues as a whole will grow as a result.



I think we agree about the need for increased transparency and regulation for complex financial instruments but your diagnosis of why unemployment is so high seems off base. Obama and Bush have done nothing but cut taxes and the economy has not grown except at the top. There is plenty of evidence suggesting that the current recession is caused by a lack of demand and not by excessive regulation or taxes. Here is just one such example.
http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i269/Megworen/businessproblems.png

Given that this recession is due to a lack of demand then I think the government has a pretty clear warrant for fiscal spending. The argument now is not who knows how best to spend the money but who is willing to spend at all. The private sector is not spending which leads to a vicious contractionary circle unless some other agent, the government, steps in to up demand. I'm also not arguing that the government should always be in the business of fiscal expansion; when the economy is out of the ditch the government can retract its spending and leave it up to the market. There is very specific case for the need for government spending now as opposed to later: high unemployment, low demand, low interest rates, cheap materials, cheap labor, crumbling infrastructure - they all point to the same solution: more or less Obama's job bill (although it could be bigger).

[SammiValentine]

Maybe I'm wrong but I see the EU and the Euro as one in the same. I've always believed it to be a financial union, nothign more. As the euro goes, so goes the EU. It's really all about the euro I think. I don't know all of the rules as to who you let in or keep out - but if the Euro collapses, what then is the purpose of the EU? Are there trade agreements that are negotiated as a whole with the EU?



UK is part of the "EU" but we are not in the Euro hence GBP/sterling. Being part of the EU is a lot more than just a currency, the EU maintains a format of rules on trading , legislation, agriculture bla bla. For example Judicial precedent can be set by the European Court of Appeal that we have to adhere to.. ah the Human Rights Act.

If the Euro collapses then that affects nations currencies and we get guilders and pesetas back!!

[Stavros]

Hard4janira: I agree with a lot of whayt you say, but when you call for more transparency in the marketing of financial products so that customers are made aware of the long term risks as well as gains, you are assuming that the sellers will not be aggressive and sidestep precisely those details or assume their buyers understand the deal, have read the small print, and so on -yet this often does not happen and is often how financial products are sold -perhaps the right kind of government regulation forcing the details to be laid bare would make a difference -but in the 1980s and 1990s when these products were developed, any link to government was opposed.

Another fundamental problem is that governments can create bureaucratic jobs, but if those layers of bureaucracy are stripped out, the private sector doesn't step in to replace it; many of the so-called 'services' that government 'return to the private sector' just disappear, leaving thousands of middle class, university educated workers without an income. And yes, some of those people were working in regulatory agencies that piled paperwork onto small businesses which were not crucial to either their business or whatever the agency was there for. Regulation is essential but I think on both sides of the Atlantic it became a means of growing government rather than serving the specific constituency the agency was set up to monitor.

The European Union as Sammy says is more than a currency union, and because its origins lie in a 'new deal' for states that had been fighting each other for centuries, it offered a practical way of pooling economic resources and diluting political conflict. The founders always had a vision of a united Europe, and one that would grow into a federation of states, if not really a European 'super-state'. So there have always been people who were opposed to the growth of federalism if it undermined national sovereignty -Britain being a major dissenter in this- while some cynics see this process anyway as a Franco-German partnership. The growth of the EU into southern and eastern Europe has tended to make these divisions worse, because many people feel the poorer states are 'not ready' to join the club and actually seeks membership because they are poor and undeveloped, seeing EU status bringing with it preferential trade arrangements and, of course, access to soft loans. Even before Greece and later Poland joined, there was a 'north-south' cleavage with organised crime in Italy taking advantage of EU loan arrangements to claim millions of dollars for olive groves that didn't exist. When peple read about the astonishing number of Porsche Cayennes the Greeks have bought, apparently not all of it from the sale of olive oil or shipping contracts, they may feel the EU is one giant rip off.

Anti-Europeans argue that the admin costs of the EU are excessive, and that we would all be trading with each other anyway so why bother paying so much into a bloated, bureaucratic, often unaccountable, and often corrupt organisation? Trade, ultimately, is seen as the foundation of the EU, but I wonder if the Euro can survive, and ultimately if things go badly in Greece and Italy, people will say that there are limits to what we can afford to pay to help countries out of a mess they created themselves -particularly when German and English workers pay taxes every week when Greeks and Italians don't seem to pay them ever.

Interesting times, but the OWS protestors don't seem to be focused on the real issues, either here or in the US.

[hard4janira]

I think we agree about the need for increased transparency and regulation for complex financial instruments but your diagnosis of why unemployment is so high seems off base. Obama and Bush have done nothing but cut taxes and the economy has not grown except at the top. There is plenty of evidence suggesting that the current recession is caused by a lack of demand and not by excessive regulation or taxes. Here is just one such example.

It's difficult to say that the Bush tax cuts didn't spur the economy. The Bush tax cuts went into effect in 2001 when GDP was 0.3%. After the tax cuts annual GDP was: 2.45, 3.1, 4.4, 3.2, and 3.2% until the recession struck in 2007 because of the real estate bubble. A great many economists told Obama that he shouldn't allow the Bush era tax cuts to expire (and he didn't). He didn't cut taxes, he simply extended the existing cuts (although his new 'jobs' plan may have some new SS tax cuts in them).

Ironically, even with the Bush 'tax cuts', the Unites States still has one of the highest corporate tax rates among industrialized countries. Now, you may say that this is offset by deductions and corporate 'welfare'. While this may be true for a few large companies that have real lobbying clout I hardly think that it is true for small buisiness which employes about 75% of working Americans. I am in favor of a small, flat tax rate for corporate America (like 12%) with no deductions whatsoever. The playing field should be the same for small business and big business alike.

But now we are talking about two different thigns: Unemployment and Recession. You can have a recession with low unemployement and you can not be in a recession with high unemployement. The two are not necessarily related (but they can be). In our case, high unemployment is a symptom of the 'great recession', IMO. So what caused the recession that led to the high unemployement? You claim it is 'lack of demand'. I agree, to a large extent. In a nutshell, several things happenned:

1) People who had easy access to credit no longer had it. This took potential spenders out of the market

2) People were underwater on their mortages w/ more debt that their house was worth. These people lost thier homes or went through bankruptcy (or both). This also took a lot of spending away because people could no longer borrow against the equity in their homes to spend

3) A lot of poeple lost their jobs on Wall-Street (and main-street in companies related to mortgages/lending) when the real-etate bubble burst and the banks went south. This had a ripple effect into other industries that were dependent on housing (construction etc..)

4) People see companies slashing to preserve the bottom line. They are laying people off and cutting costs. People get scared and they start saving more because they are unsure of the future.

Add all of these things together and you have a sinking GDP and rising unemployment because everybody is tighting their belts (people and corporations). The banks have all this money but there is no demand for it. The people that CAN borrow don't WANT to borrow.


Given that this recession is due to a lack of demand then I think the government has a pretty clear warrant for fiscal spending.

First of all, recessions are healthy for an economy. If you don't have recessions then it means you haven't had growth (ask Warren Buffet - he'll tell you he hopes to live to see another recession). We need this recession to purge out the bad. Unfortunately, the Federal Goverment was responsible in large part for creating the real-estate bubble that led to the recession. The money supply was simply way,way too much - it created a culture of consumerism and debt that was not sustainable. The recession is the markets way of 'undoing' what the Federal Reserve has done by keeping interest rates artificially low for 10 years. That being said, you cannot simply revert back to a cheap-credit, borrow and spend mentality that got us into this mess and that is exactly what the Federal government is doing. Interest rates are lower than they have ever been (even if the demand for money isn't what it once was). The Federal Goverment keeps trying to force spending when they shouldn't. My gosh, if we keep this up then the real estate market is never going to find a bottom and the bad assets on the bank books will never get purged.


The argument now is not who knows how best to spend the money but who is willing to spend at all. The private sector is not spending which leads to a vicious contractionary circle unless some other agent, the government, steps in to up demand. I'm also not arguing that the government should always be in the business of fiscal expansion; when the economy is out of the ditch the government can retract its spending and leave it up to the market. There is very specific case for the need for government spending now as opposed to later: high unemployment, low demand, low interest rates, cheap materials, cheap labor, crumbling infrastructure - they all point to the same solution: more or less Obama's job bill (although it could be bigger).

Now that we've had a recession and are dealing with the unemployment, the question becomes: why are companies are not hiring. As you know, companies make capital expeditures based on decisions that are 3-5 years out in the future. If they don't know what the regulatory or financial climate is going to be (or they fear it could be worse) why would they risk capital to grow and hire? Obamacare is a big piece of this and will significantly burden businesses (unless you were lucky enough to get a crony-capitalist exemption). Other regulations are also a part of it. So is uncertainty as to the tax laws in the future as well as the possibility of rising interest rates. If corporate America isn't hiring or spending then they are sending you a messages that they've peeked into the future and they don't like what they see. Steve Wynn (the hotel magnate) had a very brutal and scathign indictment of the current administrations policies towards business and he's a Democrat. Look it up on Youtube.

[BluegrassCat]

A great many economists told Obama that he shouldn't allow the Bush era tax cuts to expire (and he didn't). He didn't cut taxes, he simply extended the existing cuts (although his new 'jobs' plan may have some new SS tax cuts in them).


Obama DID cut taxes. In reality more than a 3rd of the $800 billion stimulus was in tax cuts. And I never said Bush tax cuts had no stimulative effect, just that the gains during his tenure were confined mostly to the top.




First of all, recessions are healthy for an economy.

While recessions may be inevitable there's nothing healthy about the high level of unemployment we're experiencing. Try telling people out of work that it's good for them. And you're conflating the easy credit of the Bush years with what actually brought on the crisis: misbehavior and over-leveraging by the largest financial firms and the compliance/incompetence of their regulators. Letting the recession "run its course" sounds innocuous or even reasonable but it will cause a very real increase in human misery. Long term unemployment does long term damage to our economy both through people dropping out of the workforce and by harming new cohorts entering the workforce during the downturn. There is nothing healthy about any of this.




Obamacare is a big piece of this and will significantly burden businesses (unless you were lucky enough to get a crony-capitalist exemption). Other regulations are also a part of it. So is uncertainty as to the tax laws in the future as well as the possibility of rising interest rates.

I just don't see any evidence for this view, in fact there's plenty of evidence that this view is incorrect. Check out Larry Mishel's piece on the reasons for low demand.

http://www.epi.org/publication/regulatory-uncertainty-phony-explanation/

[livepersona]

Here's a good video to watch.

Occupy Wall Street TRUTH! (message to young protestors) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwBUt9cGM4s)

[hard4janira]

Obama DID cut taxes. In reality more than a 3rd of the $800 billion stimulus was in tax cuts. And I never said Bush tax cuts had no stimulative effect, just that the gains during his tenure were confined mostly to the top.

What 'gains' are you talking about. Are you saying that the rich just got richer? If I recall, unemployement was very low up unitl the recession in 2007 so you could argue that the Bush tax cuts were instrumental in keeping unemployment low. It's hard to argue that middle income familes should be getting 'richer' when they don't save anything and are addicted to debt. Maybe that is part of the problem. (Oh and you are correct, 275 billion of the 800 billion in the stimulus was in the form of tax cuts or rebates of some kind).


While recessions may be inevitable there's nothing healthy about the high level of unemployment we're experiencing. Try telling people out of work that it's good for them.

I never said high unemployment was good (recession or otherwise). I wouldn't bother telling an unemployed person that recessions are necessary in a capitalist society - I'll leave the politicizing of recessions and unemployment to elected officials since that is what they do best.


And you're conflating the easy credit of the Bush years with what actually brought on the crisis: misbehavior and over-leveraging by the largest financial firms and the compliance/incompetence of their regulators. Letting the recession "run its course" sounds innocuous or even reasonable but it will cause a very real increase in human misery.

Here we have a fundamental disagreement. The Federal Reserve (and other Federal/State government agencies) are largely responsible for the real-estate bubble in my opinion. I base my opinion largely on several books that I have read from noted economists and numerous other articles and such. I will list them for you if you are interested but I doubt that we would agree on this. The over-leveraging by the banks and the shenanigans of the mortgage originators and credit rating agencies are a SYMPTOM of the lax lending standards encouraged by GSE's, HUD, initiatives such as the commuity reinvestment act, and financial blackmail against lenders by goverment and Federal reserve banks. This, coupled with the easy money policy of the Federal reserve was the ROOT cause of the bubble, which in turn left investment banks (and other) with toxic assets that they could not sell. This caused a panic in the shadow banking market and the dominoes began to fall. Again, I do not exhonerate the brokers and credit rating agencies that lied or the banks that lied to thier customers about what was on the books (Bear Stearns for example). Here, I am sure we agree.

Lastly, I would argue that NOT letting the recession run it's course will cause more human misery in the long run rather than just letting the system purge itself. All of this goverment intervention only makes matters WORSE in the long run. Would you rather rip the band-aid off or pull it off slowly? We choose to pull it slowly and it only prolongs our misery. GM should go through bankruptcy and emerge a stronger company. It should be a crime what the goverment is doing to the taxpayer. Crony capitalism steps in and uses taxpayer dollars to preserve union wages and lend GM money at below market rates. The Federal government stepping in to prop up the investment banks when they should go bankrupt is another example of this absurdity. Note that over 250 community banks have gone under since 2007 and the Federal Reserve hasn't saved a single one of them. I guess those jobs don't matter. The people what work there can just go pound sand I guess, while they bail out bad decision making at AIG and the rest of the clowns on Wall Street. It's an outrage. Many people have argued that re-capitalizing the banks has done no good whatsoever. The banks still aren't lending - the Federal Reserve has simply given them free money to buy long term bonds with, because they don't want to stomach any risk in the market. Many poeple have aruged that the actions taken as a result of the real-estate bubble bursting will be a bond bubble (that will eventually burst as well). Thanks to the Federal reserve, the American people can live from bubble to bubble, losing all of their wealth in the subsequent collapses. Get the goverment out of the way, let companies go bankrupt (moreover, let them know in advance that there is a moral hazzard involved with bailing them out) and you will see much more responsible behavior from them. What incentive does GM have to be more efficient and competitive when it knows that it can get a taxpayer handout whenever things get bad?




I just don't see any evidence for this view, in fact there's plenty of evidence that this view is incorrect. Check out Larry Mishel's piece on the reasons for low demand.

http://www.epi.org/publication/regulatory-uncertainty-phony-explanation/

There is a LOT of evidence that uncertainty is the reason companies aren't hiring.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44006656/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/t/why-companies-arent-hiring-more-workers/

[BluegrassCat]

There is a LOT of evidence that uncertainty is the reason companies aren't hiring.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44006656/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/t/why-companies-arent-hiring-more-workers/

This article provides 7 reasons businesses aren't hiring, and only 1 mentions uncertainty about taxes/regulations and even this 1 assertion is not backed up by any evidence. 5 of the 7 reasons have to do with low demand and weak growth. There may be a LOT of evidence for the uncertainty view but this article isn't it.

[trish]

If you were the CEO of a multinational and you made record profits for the last three years running, why would you be uncertain? Sure the economy's screwed up for the middle class and for small businesses, but that's not you. You're making record profits. You downsized your labor force, used their own fear of the jobless economy to raise production levels, lower salaries and slash benefits. You've restructured to make higher profits with less personnel. You're not a job creator, your a profit maker and you're doing just fine.

[hard4janira]

This article provides 7 reasons businesses aren't hiring, and only 1 mentions uncertainty about taxes/regulations and even this 1 assertion is not backed up by any evidence. 5 of the 7 reasons have to do with low demand and weak growth. There may be a LOT of evidence for the uncertainty view but this article isn't it.

This is an excerpt from the article:

Many companies are reporting thatbusiness (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44006656/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/t/why-companies-arent-hiring-more-workers/#) is improving, but that’s not necessarily translating into new jobs. A survey of chief executives, released in June by the trade group Business Roundtable, found that 87 percent expect sales to increase in the coming six months. But just around half said they expected to add jobs during that period.

So based on this survey last June (which admittedly is just one survey), CEO's see sales IMPROVING (which directly contradicts your assertion that poor sales is why companies are not hiring).

They go on to state (as one of the reasons):

When asked why they aren’t hiring, you’ll often hear the word “uncertainties.” Those range from not knowing whether taxes (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44006656/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/t/why-companies-arent-hiring-more-workers/#) might increase at some point to worries about how health care reform could add to employee costs in the future.

[hard4janira]

If you were the CEO of a multinational and you made record profits for the last three years running, why would you be uncertain? Sure the economy's screwed up for the middle class and for small businesses, but that's not you. You're making record profits. You downsized your labor force, used their own fear of the jobless economy to raise production levels, lower salaries and slash benefits. You've restructured to make higher profits with less personnel. You're not a job creator, your a profit maker and you're doing just fine.

Most of the growth in U.S. based multi-nationals has come from sales OVERSEAS, not domestic growth. Why don't you ask Caterpiller that question: They've already said that Obamacare will cost them 100 million in the first year alone. McDonalds also said that they would have to drop health care for their employees - I wonder if these two behemoths have the lobbying clout to get crony-capitalist exemptions from the White house (oh, wait - McDonalds already has).

That means the 'uncertainty' is left to small and medium size business, who get the screw-job once again. Too small to get exemptions or corporate tax breaks, these business bear the burden of uncertainty while employing 75% of all working Americans.

ITS A SHAM, BABY!!!

[needsum]

It's difficult to say that the Bush tax cuts didn't spur the economy. The Bush tax cuts went into effect in 2001 when GDP was 0.3%. After the tax cuts annual GDP was: 2.45, 3.1, 4.4, 3.2, and 3.2% until the recession struck in 2007 because of the real estate bubble. A great many economists told Obama that he shouldn't allow the Bush era tax cuts to expire (and he didn't). He didn't cut taxes, he simply extended the existing cuts (although his new 'jobs' plan may have some new SS tax cuts in them).

Ironically, even with the Bush 'tax cuts', the Unites States still has one of the highest corporate tax rates among industrialized countries. Now, you may say that this is offset by deductions and corporate 'welfare'. While this may be true for a few large companies that have real lobbying clout I hardly think that it is true for small buisiness which employes about 75% of working Americans. I am in favor of a small, flat tax rate for corporate America (like 12%) with no deductions whatsoever. The playing field should be the same for small business and big business alike.

But now we are talking about two different thigns: Unemployment and Recession. You can have a recession with low unemployement and you can not be in a recession with high unemployement. The two are not necessarily related (but they can be). In our case, high unemployment is a symptom of the 'great recession', IMO. So what caused the recession that led to the high unemployement? You claim it is 'lack of demand'. I agree, to a large extent. In a nutshell, several things happenned:

1) People who had easy access to credit no longer had it. This took potential spenders out of the market

2) People were underwater on their mortages w/ more debt that their house was worth. These people lost thier homes or went through bankruptcy (or both). This also took a lot of spending away because people could no longer borrow against the equity in their homes to spend

3) A lot of poeple lost their jobs on Wall-Street (and main-street in companies related to mortgages/lending) when the real-etate bubble burst and the banks went south. This had a ripple effect into other industries that were dependent on housing (construction etc..)

4) People see companies slashing to preserve the bottom line. They are laying people off and cutting costs. People get scared and they start saving more because they are unsure of the future.

Add all of these things together and you have a sinking GDP and rising unemployment because everybody is tighting their belts (people and corporations). The banks have all this money but there is no demand for it. The people that CAN borrow don't WANT to borrow.



First of all, recessions are healthy for an economy. If you don't have recessions then it means you haven't had growth (ask Warren Buffet - he'll tell you he hopes to live to see another recession). We need this recession to purge out the bad. Unfortunately, the Federal Goverment was responsible in large part for creating the real-estate bubble that led to the recession. The money supply was simply way,way too much - it created a culture of consumerism and debt that was not sustainable.

this was a great post, and I want to expand on the aspect in bold. This culture of consumerism is not new. Our country was designed for this very thing at the end of the 1940's. There was a decision made to go one of two ways--to continue on the path we were on of self-sustinence, or to become a consumeristci society. The choice for consumerism was made, and we bought ourselves into this problem we currently face. as technology expands, it gets easier and easier to "afford" more and more things that were once available to the wealthy. As well, a higher demand relates to a bigger need for simpler-to-produce goods. Which creates a system where things are made cheaper so that they break and we dont' feel so bad when we have to replace them.. its an almost guaranteed system. Check out www.storyofstuff.org (http://www.storyofstuff.org) its amazing the shit we just don't know. I look at all the protesting, and the political garbage, the debt, the welfare, the unemployment, and all the jackwagons in power who think they can just make us feel warm and cuddly and that they have the solution.

There is no "one" solution to all this. it will take a lot of work from everone to change our way of living. We can be a consumer society and still be a productive, smart and saavy society without all the crap in between that is killing us now. the cure starts with each one of us individually.